DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-5 and 13, a comma should be inserted before “wherein” in line 1.
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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Dependent claims are included in all rejections.
Claims 1-3 are indefinite in their recitation of “Cry1Da insecticidal protein or variant”. It is not clear what is mean by “or variant”. “Variant” does not appear to be a Cry1Da protein, as there are multiple Cry1Da proteins; if the claim was intended to be limited to use of a Cry1Da protein, then the phrase “or variant” would not be necessary. It is also unclear how different from a Cry1Da protein a variant is.
Claim 6 lacks antecedent basis for the limitation “said plant”. It is suggested that “plant is” be replaced with --plants are--.
Claim 7 is drawn to a plurality of plants in a field. It is not clear if the plurality of plants were in another location, like a greenhouse, if they would be encompassed by the claim.
Claim 11 lacks antecedent basis for the limitation “the plant of claim 7” as claim 7 is drawn to a plurality of plants.
Claim 12 is indefinite in their recitation of “express a coding region comprising SEQ ID NO:6” as SEQ ID NO:6 is protein and not DNA. Coding regions do not comprise proteins. For purposes of examination, the claim was treated as though it reads “expresses a DNA comprising a coding region encoding
Claim 13 is indefinite in its recitation of “wherein the DNA sequence is at least 99% identical to SEQ ID NO:6” as SEQ ID NO:6 is protein and not DNA. For purposes of examination, the claim was treated as though it reads “wherein the DNA sequence encodes a protein that is at least 99% identical to SEQ ID NO:6”. Such treatment does not relieve Applicant of the responsibility to respond to this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Parent claim 7 is drawn to a plurality of plants in a field comprising non-Bt refuge plants and plants expressing Cry1Da.
Dependent claim 8 is drawn to the plurality of plants where they occupy more than 10 acres. Dependent claim 10 is drawn to the plurality of plants where are planted in blocks or strips. However, the location or arrangement of a product does not limit the product in any manner. Thus, the claims do not further limit the parent claim.
Dependent claim 9 is drawn to the plurality of plants of claim 7 where there are no refuge plants. however, as parent claim 7 specifically recites that refuge plants are present, the claim is broader than the claim upon with it depends.
Claim 11 is drawn to a method comprising allowing an insect to feed on the plant of claim 7. However, claim 7 is drawn to a plurality of plants and not to a single plant. Thus, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 is drawn to a method comprising transforming a plant cell with a DNA (encoding) SEQ ID NO:6, regenerating a plant from the plant cell, growing seeds of the plant, and allowing corn earworm to feed on the Cry1Da. Dependent claim 13 is drawn to the method where the DNA (encodes a protein that) has 99% identity SEQ ID NO:6. Thus, claim 13 is broader than the claim upon with it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bogdanova et al (US 2006/0112447).
This rejection is made because of the following recitation in the claims: “Cry1Da insecticidal protein or variant”. “Variant” is not interpreted to be a Cry1Da protein. As there are multiple Cry1Da proteins, if the claim were intended to be limited to use of a Cry1Da protein, then the phrase “or variant” would not be necessary. Thus, the claim is interpreted to mean any Cry1 protein.
Bogdanova et al teach feeding maize plants expressing Cry1Ab to corn earworm (Table 8).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meade et al (WO 2011/084629) in view of each of Capinera (2005, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/ fall_armyworm.htm) and Capinera (2007, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/ corn_earworm.htm).
The claims are drawn to methods of controlling corn earworm comprising providing a Cry1Da or comprising transforming a plant with DNA encoding a Cry1Da. The claims are also drawn to a plurality of plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and transgenic plants comprising Cry1Da, and mixtures of seeds to produce that plurality.
Meade et al (2011) teach putting a nucleic acid encoding Cry1Da and Cry1Ca into plants, including corn, soybean and cotton (¶19-20; claims 1-4, 18-19). Meade et al teach using the plants and/or the Cry1Da protein itself to control fall armyworm (¶10, 12, 14-15, 21; claim 23).
Meade et al (2011) also teach seed mixtures comprising Cry1Da expressing seeds and non-Bt refuge seeds and fields in which the seeds have been plants and the plants are growing; the refuge plants can be planted in strips (¶63-65; claims 5-15). The refuge size can be less than 10% (¶66; claims 9 and 15), even down to zero refuge (¶68).
The Cry1Da taught by Meade et al (2011) has 98.7% identity to the instant SEQ ID NO:6:
AZJ73843
ID AZJ73843 standard; protein; 594 AA.
XX
AC AZJ73843;
XX
DT 18-AUG-2011 (first entry)
XX
DE Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Da insecticidal protein, SEQ ID 2.
XX
KW Cry1Da; crop improvement; insect resistance; pesticide;
KW pesticide resistance; toxin; transgenic plant.
XX
OS Bacillus thuringiensis.
XX
CC PN WO2011084629-A1.
XX
CC PD 14-JUL-2011.
XX
CC PF 16-DEC-2010; 2010WO-US060828.
XX
PR 16-DEC-2009; 2009US-0284252P.
PR 16-DEC-2009; 2009US-0284275P.
PR 16-DEC-2009; 2009US-0284281P.
XX
CC PA (DOWC ) DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC.
XX
CC PI Meade T, Narva K, Storer NP, Sheets JJ, Woosley AT, Burton SL;
XX
DR WPI; 2011-J12762/48.
XX
CC PT Transgenic plant which is resistant to fall armyworm insect comprises two
CC PT DNAs, each encoding two different specific cryptochrome insecticidal
CC PT proteins.
XX
CC PS Claim 20; SEQ ID NO 2; 44pp; English.
XX
CC The present invention relates to a novel transgenic plant for controlling
CC fall armyworm (FAW) lepidopteran insects. The transgenic plant comprises
CC a DNA sequence encoding a Cry1Da and Cry1Ca insecticidal protein. The
CC Cry1Da and Cry1Ca toxins do not compete for binding with each other in
CC the gut of FAW, and can be used in combination to delay or prevent FAW
CC from developing resistance to either of the proteins alone. Also
CC described are: a seed of a plant comprising the DNA of Cry1Da and Cry1Ca
CC toxins; a field of plants comprising non-Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
CC refuge plants and plurality of plants; a mixture of seeds comprising
CC refuge seeds from non-Bt refuge plants and a plurality of seeds; a method
CC for managing development of resistance to a Cry protein by an insect; a
CC method for producing the plant cell comprising Cry1Da and Cry1Ca proteins
CC encoding DNA; and a method for controlling the FAW insects by contacting
CC the insect with a Cry1Ca and Cry1Da insecticidal protein. The method for
CC producing transgenic plants of the invention is useful for producing
CC transgenic plants such as corns, soybeans, cotton and maize having
CC resistance to FAW insects. The present sequence is a Bacillus
CC thuringiensis Cry1Da insecticidal protein, which is specifically claimed
CC for use in combination with Cry1Ca for preparing the transgenic plants
CC having resistance against FAW insects.
XX
SQ Sequence 594 AA;
Query Match 98.7%; Score 3089; DB 18; Length 594;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 594; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
Qy 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
Qy 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
Qy 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
Qy 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
Qy 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
Qy 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
Qy 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
Qy 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
Qy 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
Meade et al (2011) do not actually make the plants. Meade et al (2011) also do not teach allowing corn earworm to ingest the plants or the Cry1Da protein.
Capinera (2005) teaches that fall armyworm found throughout the eastern US and is particularly found in the Southeastern US (pg 1, ¶1).
Capinera (2007) teaches that corn earworm is found throughout the continental US and overwinters in the Southeastern US (pg 1, ¶1-2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the plants suggested by Meade et al (2011). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because of Meade et al’s (2011) suggestion to do so (¶19-20; claims 1-4, 18-19)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to plant the plants in areas with both corn earworm and fall armyworm, like the Southeastern US. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because fall armyworm is a serious corn pest in that area (Capinera (2005), pg 1, paragraph 1). In using the plants to control fall armyworm, one would also control corn earworm.
Meade et al (2011)’s Cry1Da has 100% identity to the first 594 amino acids of SEQ ID NO:6. Meade et al describes it as a full core toxin portion of CryDa (¶33). It thus comprises a core toxin region that is at least 99% identical to that of SEQ ID NO:6.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meade et al (US 2012/0331589) in view of each of Capinera (2005, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/ fall_armyworm.htm) and Capinera (2007, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/ corn_earworm.htm).
The claims are drawn to methods of controlling corn earworm comprising providing Cry1Da or comprising transforming a plant with DNA encoding Cry1Da. The claims are also drawn to a plurality of plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and transgenic plants comprising Cry1Da, and mixtures of seeds to produce that plurality.
Meade et al (2012) teach putting nucleic acids encoding Cry1Da and Cry1Fa into plants, including corn, soybean and cotton (¶11, 17-19, 25, 27-28, 102; claims 1-2, 17, 21, 26, 33-34). Meade et al (2012) teach using the plants and Cry1Da to control fall armyworm (¶10, 12, 14-15, 21; claim 20).
Meade et al (2012) also teach seed mixtures comprising Cry1Da expressing seeds and non-Bt refuge seeds and fields in which the seeds have been plants and the plants are growing; the refuge plants can be planted in strips (¶73-93; claims 5, 9-11, 15-16, 18-20, 27-29, 31). The refuge size can be less than 5% (¶94; claims 9 and 15), even down to zero refuge (¶96).
The Cry1Da taught by Meade et al (2012) has 98.7% identity to the instant SEQ ID NO:6:
; Sequence 2, Application US/13516604
; Publication No. US20120331589A1
; GENERAL INFORMATION
; APPLICANT: Dow AGROSCIENCES LLC
; TITLE OF INVENTION: COMBINED USE OF Cry1Fa AND Cry1Da FOR MANAGEMENT OF RESISTANT INSECTS
; FILE REFERENCE: DAS-P0161-US
; CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/13/516,604
; CURRENT FILING DATE: 2012-06-15
; NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 2
; SOFTWARE: PatentIn version 3.5
; SEQ ID NO 2
; LENGTH: 594
; TYPE: PRT
; ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
; FEATURE:
; OTHER INFORMATION: Cry1Da
US-13-516-604-2
Query Match 98.7%; Score 3089; DB 10; Length 594;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 594; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
Qy 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
Qy 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
Qy 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
Qy 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
Qy 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
Qy 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
Qy 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
Qy 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
Qy 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
Meade et al (2012) do not actually make the plants. Meade et al (2012) also do not teach allowing corn earworm to ingest the plants.
The teachings of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) are discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the plants suggested by Meade et al (2012). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because of Meade et al’s (2011) suggestion to do so (¶11, 17-19, 25, 27-28, 102; claims 1-2, 17, 21, 26, 33-3)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to plant the plants in areas with both corn earworm and fall armyworm, like the Southeastern US. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because fall armyworm is a serious corn pest in that area (Capinera 2005, pg 1, ¶1). In using the plants to control fall armyworm, one would also control corn earworm.
Meade et al (2012)’s Cry1Da has 100% identity to the first 594 amino acids of SEQ ID NO:6. Because it is an effect insecticidal toxin, it comprises a core toxin region that is at least 99% identical to that of SEQ ID NO:6.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade et al (2011) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) as applied to claims 1-12 above, and further in view of Payne et al (2009, US 7,511,129).
The claims are drawn to methods of controlling corn earworm comprising providing a Cry1Da with 99% identity to SEQ ID NO:6 or comprising transforming a plant with DNA encoding Cry1Da. The claims are also drawn to a plurality of plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and transgenic plants comprising Cry1Da, and mixtures of seeds to produce that plurality.
The teachings of Meade et al (2011) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) are discussed above. Meade et al (2011) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) do not teach a Cry1Da with 99% identity to SEQ ID NO:6.
Payne et al teach a Cry1Da with 99.7% identity to SEQ ID NO:6:
US-11-601-345-4
; Sequence 4, Application US/11601345
; Patent No. 7511129
; GENERAL INFORMATION:
; APPLICANT: Payne, Jewel
; APPLICANT: Sick, August J.
; TITLE OF INVENTION: Novel Bacillus thuringiensis Isolate Active Against Lepidopteran
; TITLE OF INVENTION: Pests, and Genes Encoding Novel Lepidopteran-Active Toxins
; FILE REFERENCE: MA-43CDF2D5
; CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/11/601,345
; CURRENT FILING DATE: 2006-11-17
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 10/825,751
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 2004-04-16
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 09/837,961
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 2001-04-19
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 09/521,344
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 2000-03-09
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 08/933,891
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 1997-09-19
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 08/356,034
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 1994-12-14
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 08/210,110
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 1994-03-17
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 07/865,168
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 1992-04-09
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 07/451,261
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 1989-12-14
; PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US 371,955
; PRIOR FILING DATE: 1989-06-27
; NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 10
; SOFTWARE: PatentIn version 3.3
; SEQ ID NO 4
; LENGTH: 1165
; TYPE: PRT
; ORGANISM: Bacillus thuringiensis
US-11-601-345-4
Query Match 99.7%; Score 3121; DB 3; Length 1165;
Best Local Similarity 99.7%;
Matches 601; Conservative 0; Mismatches 2; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
Qy 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
Qy 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
Qy 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
Qy 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
Qy 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
Qy 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
Qy 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
Qy 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
Qy 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTATLEAESD 600
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |
Db 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTATFEAEYD 600
Qy 601 LER 603
|||
Db 601 LER 603
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Cry1da taught by Payne et al in the plants made obvious by Meade et al (2011) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because substitution of one Cry1Da for another is an obvious design choice.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade et al (2012) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) as applied to claims 1-12 above, and further in view of Payne et al (2009, US 7,511,129).
The claims are drawn to methods of controlling corn earworm comprising providing a Cry1Da with 99% identity to SEQ ID NO:6 or comprising transforming a plant with DNA encoding Cry1Da. The claims are also drawn to a plurality of plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and transgenic plants comprising Cry1Da, and mixtures of seeds to produce that plurality.
The teachings of Meade et al (2012) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) are discussed above. Meade et al (2012) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) do not teach a Cry1Da with 99% identity to SEQ ID NO:6.
The teachings of Payne et al are discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Cry1Da taught by Payne et al in the plants made obvious by Meade et al (2012) in view of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because substitution of one Cry1da for another is an obvious design choice.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 9,499,835. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The plurality of corn or soybean plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and plants comprising DNA encoding a Cry1Da of SEQ ID NO:2 and other Bt proteins, as claimed in ‘835, are species of the genus of the plurality of plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and transgenic plants comprising DNA encoding protein comprising a Cry1Da core toxin, as claimed in the instant application.
SEQ ID NO:2 in ‘835 has 100% identity to amino acids 1-594 of the instant SEQ ID NO:6 and is thus a Cry1Da core toxin:
US-13-516-665-2
Sequence 2, US/13516665
Patent No. 9499835
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Dow AGROSCIENCES LLC
TITLE OF INVENTION: COMBINED USE OF CRY1BE AND CRY1DA FOR MANAGEMENT OF RESISTANT INSECTS
FILE REFERENCE: DAS-P0198-US
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/13/516,665
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2012-06-15
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 2
SEQ ID NO 2
LENGTH: 594
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Cry1Da
Query Match 98.7%; Score 3089; Length 594;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 594; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
Qy 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
Qy 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
Qy 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
Qy 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
Qy 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
Qy 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
Qy 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
Qy 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
Qy 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
Both ‘835 and the instant application recite that the refuge plants comprise less than 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% or 5% of all the plants. The transgenic plants themselves would be a plurality of plants where no refuge plants are present.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Patent No. 9,499,835 in view of each of Capinera (2005, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/ fall_armyworm.htm) and Capinera (2007, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/ corn_earworm.htm).
In addition to the claims discussed above, ‘835 claims a method comprising planting a mixture of seeds comprising non-Bt seeds and seeds comprising the DNA encoding the CryDa to control fall armyworm.
‘835 does not claim using the plants expressing the Cry1Da to control corn earworm.
The teachings of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) are discussed above.
In the course of planting the seeds to control fall armyworm, one of ordinary skill in the art would also provide the plants grown from the seed and the Cry1Da protein they encode to corn rootworm as fall armyworm and corn earworm share the same environment (Capinera 2005. pg 1, ¶1, Capinera 2007, pg 1, ¶1-2).
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Patent No. 9,499,835 in view of each of Capinera (2005, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/ fall_armyworm.htm), Capinera (2007, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/ corn_earworm.htm), and further in view of Payne et al (2009, US 7,511,129)
‘835 does not claim plants comprising DNA encoding a Cry1Da with at least 99% identity to the instant SEQ ID NO:6,
The teachings of Payne et al are discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the Cry1Da in the plants claimed in ‘835 with the Cry1Da taught in Payne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because substitution of one Cry1Da for another is an obvious design choice, as well as being a substitution of equivalents.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to produce the seeds encoding the Cry1Da by transforming a plant cell with a nucleic acid encoding Payne’s Cry1Da, regenerating a plant from the transformed plant cell, collecting seeds from the plant, as this is a routine method of plant transformation. It would then have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to grow the seeds into plants, and allow the pests to feed on them, as claimed in ‘835.
Claims 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15 of US Patent No. 9,796,982. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The plurality of corn or soybean plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and plants comprising DNA encoding a Cry1Da of SEQ ID NO:2 and other Bt proteins, as claimed in ‘982, are species of the genus of the plurality of plants comprising non-Bt refuge plants and transgenic plants comprising DNA encoding protein comprising a Cry1Da core toxin, as claimed in the instant application.
SEQ ID NO:2 in ‘982 has 100% identity to amino acids 1-594 of the instant SEQ ID NO:6 and is thus a Cry1Da core toxin:
US-13-516-663-2
Sequence 2, US/13516663
Patent No. 9796982
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Dow AGROSCIENCES LLC
TITLE OF INVENTION: COMBINED USE OF CRY1CA AND CRY1DA FOR MANAGEMENT OF RESISTANT INSECTS
FILE REFERENCE: DAS-P0197-US
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/13/516,663
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2012-06-15
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 2
SEQ ID NO 2
LENGTH: 594
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Cry1Da
Query Match 98.7%; Score 3089; Length 594;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 594; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MEINNQNQCVPYNCLSNPKEIILGEERLETGNTVADISLGLINFLYSNFVPGGGFIVGLL 60
Qy 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 ELIWGFIGPSQWDIFLAQIEQLISQRIEEFARNQAISRLEGLSNLYKVYVRAFSDWEKDP 120
Qy 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 TNPALREEMRIQFNDMNSALITAIPLFRVQNYEVALLSVYVQAANLHLSILRDVSVFGER 180
Qy 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 WGYDTATINNRYSDLTSLIHVYTNHCVDTYNQGLRRLEGRFLSDWIVYNRFRRQLTISVL 240
Qy 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 DIVAFFPNYDIRTYPIQTATQLTREVYLDLPFINENLSPAASYPTFSAAESAIIRSPHLV 300
Qy 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 DFLNSFTIYTDSLARYAYWGGHLVNSFRTGTTTNLIRSPLYGREGNTERPVTITASPSVP 360
Qy 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 IFRTLSYITGLDNSNPVAGIEGVEFQNTISRSIYRKSGPIDSFSELPPQDASVSPAIGYS 420
Qy 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 HRLCHATFLERISGPRIAGTVFSWTHRSASPTNEVSPSRITQIPWVKAHTLASGASVIKG 480
Qy 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 481 PGFTGGDILTRNSMGELGTLRVTFTGRLPQSYYIRFRYASVANRSGTFRYSQPPSYGISF 540
Qy 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 541 PKTMDAGEPLTSRSFAHTTLFTPITFSRAQEEFDLYIQSGVYIDRIEFIPVTAT 594
Both ‘982 and the instant application recite that the refuge plants comprise less than 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% or 5% of all the plants. The transgenic plants themselves would be a plurality of plants where no refuge plants are present.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 9,796,982 in view of each of each of Capinera (2005, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/ fall_armyworm.htm) and Capinera (2007, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/ corn_earworm.htm).
In addition to the claims discussed above, ‘982 claims a method comprising planting a mixture of seeds comprising non-Bt seeds and seeds comprising the DNA encoding the CryDa to control fall armyworm.
‘982 does not claim using the plants expressing the Cry1Da to control corn earworm.
The teachings of each of Capinera (2005) and Capinera (2007) are discussed above.
In the course of planting the seeds to control fall armyworm, one of ordinary skill in the art would also provide the plants grown from the seed and the Cry1Da protein they encode to corn rootworm as fall armyworm and corn earworm share the same environment (Capinera 2005. pg 1, ¶1, Capinera 2007, pg 1, ¶1-2).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to produce the seeds encoding the Cry1Da by transforming a plant cell with a nucleic acid encoding a Cry1Da of SEQ ID NO:6, regenerating a plant from the transformed plant cell, collecting seeds from the plant, as this is a routine method of plant transformation. It would then have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to grow the seeds into plants, and allow the pests to feed on them, as claimed in ‘982.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 9,796,982 in view of each of Capinera (2005, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/ fall_armyworm.htm), Capinera (2007, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/ corn_earworm.htm), and further in view of Payne et al (2009, US 7,511,129)
‘982 does not claim plants comprising DNA encoding a Cry1Da with at least 99% identity to the instant SEQ ID NO:6.
The teachings of Payne et al are discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the Cry1Da in the plants claimed in ‘982 with the Cry1Da taught in Payne. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because substitution of one Cry1Da for another is an obvious design choice, as well as being a substitution of equivalents.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to produce the seeds encoding the Cry1Da by transforming a plant cell with a nucleic acid encoding Payne’s Cry1Da, regenerating a plant from the transformed plant cell, collecting seeds from the plant, as this is a routine method of plant transformation. It would then have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to grow the seeds into plants, and allow the pests to feed on them, as claimed in ‘982.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,890,390. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The method comprising providing to corn earworm a plant expressing a Cry1Da of SEQ ID NO:6, as claimed in ‘390, makes obvious the instantly claimed methods of providing a Cry1Da, including of SEQ ID NO:6, to corn earworm. ‘390 is in the priority chain of the instant application; thus, SEQ ID NO:6 in ‘390 is identical to the instant SEQ ID NO:6.
The plurality of plants comprising plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin of SEQ ID NO:6 and non-Bt refuge plants, as claimed in ‘390, makes obvious the instantly claimed plurality of plants comprising plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin and non-Bt refuge plants.
The method comprising transforming a plant cell with a nucleic acid encoding a Cry1Da of SEQ ID NO:6, regenerating a plant from the transformed plant cell, collecting seeds from the plant, growing the seeds into a plant, and allowing a corn rootworm to feed on the plant, as claimed in ‘390, makes obvious the instantly claimed method comprising transforming a plant cell with a nucleic acid encoding a Cry1Da with 99% identity to SEQ ID NO:6, regenerating a plant from the transformed plant cell, collecting seeds from the plant, growing the seeds into a plant, and allowing a corn rootworm to feed on the plant.
It is noted that if claim 12 were amended as suggested in the indefiniteness rejection above, it would be identical to claim 8 of ‘390 and a statutory double patenting rejection would be made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,683,517. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The method comprising providing to corn earworm one or more plants expressing a Cry1Da of SEQ ID NO:6, as claimed in ‘517, makes obvious the instantly claimed methods of providing a plant comprising a Cry1Da to corn earworm. ‘517 is in the priority chain of the instant application; thus, SEQ ID NO:6 in ‘517 is identical to the instant SEQ ID NO:6. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the plant to be cotton, corn or soybean, as these are the plants attacked by corn rootworm.
The method makes obvious plants expressing a Cry1Da of SEQ ID NO:6. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the plants to be a plurality of plants comprising plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin and non-Bt refuge plants as regulations require planting transgenic pest-resistant plants with nontransgenic refuge plants to reduce or slow the evolution of insects with resistance to the transgene conferring pest-resistance.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,485,983. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
A maize or soybean plant expressing SEQ ID NO:6, as claimed in ‘983, makes obvious the instantly claimed plurality of plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin. ‘983 is in the priority chain of the instant application; thus, SEQ ID NO:6 in ‘983 is identical to the instant SEQ ID N:6 and encodes a Cry1Da toxin.
The instantly claimed methods of providing the plant and the protein it expresses to corn earworm is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because growing the resulting plant in areas infested with corn rootworm would provide the pest with the Cry1Da toxin of SEQ ID NO:6 and result in its death.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,795,471. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The method comprising transforming a plant with a nucleic acid encoding SEQ ID NO:6, culturing the transformed plant, and regenerating a monocot or dicot plant, as claimed in ‘471, makes obvious the instantly claimed plurality of plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin. ‘471 is in the priority chain of the instant application; thus, SEQ ID NO:6 in ‘471 is identical to the instant SEQ ID NO:6 and encodes a Cry1Da toxin.
A plurality of plants comprising plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin and non-Bt refuge plants is obvious over ‘471 expressing a Cry1Da toxin of SEQ ID NO:6 as regulations require planting transgenic pest-resistant plants with nontransgenic refuge plants to reduce or slow the evolution of insects with resistance to the transgene conferring pest-resistance.
The instantly claimed methods of providing the plant and the protein it expresses to corn earworm is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because growing the resulting plant in areas infested with corn rootworm would provide the pest with the Cry1Da toxin of SEQ ID NO:6 and result in its death. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the plant to be cotton, corn or soybean, as these are the plants attacked by corn rootworm.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,264,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
A plant comprising a construct comprising a heterologous regulatory element operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding SEQ ID NO:6, as claimed in ‘321, makes obvious the instantly claimed plurality of plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin. ‘321 is in the priority chain of the instant application; thus, SEQ ID NO:6 in ‘321 is identical to the instant SEQ ID NO:6 and encodes a Cry1Da toxin.
A plurality of plants comprising plants expressing a Cry1Da toxin and non-Bt refuge plants is obvious over ‘321 expressing a Cry1Da toxin of SEQ ID NO:6 as regulations require planting transgenic pest-resistant plants with nontransgenic refuge plants to reduce or slow the evolution of insects with resistance to the transgene conferring pest-resistance.
The method of controlling corn earworm and providing insect resistance management comprising transforming a plant with a construct comprising a heterologous regulatory element operably linked to a nucleic acid encoding SEQ ID NO:6, as claimed in ‘321, makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the instantly claimed methods of providing the plant and the protein it expresses to corn earworm. This obvious because growing the resulting plant in areas infested with corn rootworm would provide the pest with the Cry1Da toxin of SEQ ID NO:6 and result in its death. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the plant to be cotton, corn or soybean, as these are the plants attacked by corn rootworm.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne R. Kubelik, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0801. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad Abraham, can be reached at (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights