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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant does not include an Information Disclosure Statement. The listed and cited reference(s) in the specification, is/are not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Restriction/Status of claims
On 8/13/2026, the applicant amended the claim set. Independent claims 1, 3, 6, 13-15 are amended.
claims 16-20 (dependent claims of claim 3) are newly added by the applicant.
The applicant elected Group II, claims 3-4, 6-8, 12, 16-20, without traverse.
The applicant also elected species SEQ ID NO: 170 (from SEQ ID NOs: 1-392), without traverse.
In view of the claim amendment, particularly a “and” is inserted into between a) and b) in both claims 1 and 3. As the result, claim 1 and claim 3 are drawn to essentially the same subject matter. Accordingly, upon further consideration and for compact prosecution, the restriction to Group I is withdrawn.
In summary, claims 1-12, 14, 16-20 (Groups I and II) are examined in this office action. Non-elected claims 13 and 15 and non-elected species are withdrawn.
Priority
Instant application 19106507, filed 02/25/2025 is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2023/073320, International Filing Date: 08/25/2023, and claims foreign priority to 22192484.8, filed 08/26/2022.
A certified copy of foreign priority was received. 22192484.8 is in English, and disclosed the elected claimed subject matter. Thus, the priority date of 8/26/2022 is recognized.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected for informalities:
The claim depends on claim 3.
However, in line 1, the “said MYB80 gene” and the “said DWARF11 gene” are in full capitals, which is inconsistent with the Myb80 and the Dwarf11 in claim 3 and in line 3 of the same claim 16.
See the requirement of 37 CFR 1.71(a) for “full, clear, and exact terms”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Scope of Enablement
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.
Claims 5-8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of inhibiting/blocking/mutating both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in the same chromosome in rice, does not reasonably provide enablement for a method of inhibiting/blocking/mutating both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in the same chromosome in all plants. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claims are broadly drawn to a method of inhibiting/blocking/mutating both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in the same chromosome in plants.
The applicant provides examples serving as a guidance that both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in the same chromosome in wheat, barley and rice (Table 1 in p123-125).
However, the applicant does not provide any guidance that both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in the same chromosome in all plants.
In the art, in contrary, Myb80/Myb103 and Dwarf11 genes are not located in the same chromosome in many plants.
For example, Jiang et al (Genome-Wide Study of MYB Transcription Factors in Maize and Their Essential Roles in Male Fertility and Other Biological Processes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. p1-21, 2026) provide evidence that in Maize, Myb103 is located in chromosome 3, not in chromosome 4 (p3, Figure 1).
Sun et al (ZmCYP90D1 regulates maize internode development by modulating brassinosteroid-mediated cell division and growth. The Crop Journal 12, 58–67, 2024) provide evidence that dwarf11 (ZmD11) is likely located in chromosome 4 in Maize (p58, right col, 1st para), not in chromosome 3 where Myb80/103 is located.
Thus, if Myb80/Myb103 and Dwarf11 genes are not located in the same chromosome in a plant, it is not likely one can inhibit/block them in the same chromosome.
MPEP 2164 provides the Enablement Requirement. MPEP section 2164.01 states “Any 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”
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term “undue experimentation,” it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
Therefore, given the claim breadth, lack of guidance in the specification, insufficient working examples in the instant specification, unpredictability in the prior art, undue experimentation would have been required by one skilled in the art to make and use the invention as broadly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacuone et al (WO 2005122751, published 12/29/2005), in view of Xiong et al (The transcription factors MS188 and AMS form a complex to activate the expression of CYP703A2 for sporopollenin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. The Plant Journal. 88, 936–946, 2016), Wang et al (Gibberellin Biosynthetic Deficiency Is Responsible for Maize Dominant Dwarf11 (D11) Mutant Phenotype: Physiological and Transcriptomic Evidence. PLOS ONE. p1-8, 2013), viewed with evidenced from Tong et al (Notched Belly Grain 4, a Novel Allele of Dwarf 11, Regulates Grain Shape and Seed Germination in Rice (Oryza sativa L. Int. J. Mol. Sci. p1-9, 2018).
Claim 1 is drawn to a method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a plant or plant part not expressing or having reduced expression, activity, and/or stability of the Myb80 gene product; and/or having a mutation in the Myb80 gene; and
b) reducing or eliminating expression, activity, and/or stability of the Dwarf11 gene product in said plant or plant part; and/or introducing a mutation in the Dwarf11 gene or regulatory sequence thereof.
Claim 3 is drawn to a method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a plant or plant part not expressing or having reduced expression, activity, and/or stability of the Dwarf11 gene product; and/or having a mutation in the Dwarf11 gene; and
b) reducing or eliminating expression, activity, and/or stability of the Myb80 gene product in said plant or plant part; and/or introducing a mutation in the Myb80 gene or regulatory sequence thereof.
For generating or modifying a plant or plant part (preamble for both claims).
Interpretation of above claims: In both claims, by BRI, a) and b) can be performed sequentially (either a) or b) can be performed first) or at the same time. Thus, claim 1 and claim 3 are drawn to essentially the same subject matter.
According to the specification (p56, 3rd para), "Myb80" was previously known as Myb103.
Regarding claims 1 and 3
Lacuone et al teach that under normal conditions, MYB103/Myb80 detectably expressed in anther tissue of a plant during pollen (a male organ) formation, and that MYB103 enhances/restores male fertility in plants (Abstract; p87, 1st para).
Lacuone et al teach and claim a method of inhibiting/blocking the expression of an endogenous nucleic acid molecule MYB103/Myb80, and demonstrated success in working examples in Brassica plant (Abstract; claims 1-2, Examples 4-5 in p77, last para, to p86,2nd para).
Thus, Lacuone et al teach and demonstrated step a) of claim 1 and step b) of claim 3.
Lacuone et al further teach that blocking expression of MYB103 alone does not produce 100% sterile plants (a motivation). Lacuone et al further teach blocking additional genes that are related to plant fertility, and demonstrated success in produce 100% male sterile plant (Example 5 in p84, 3rd para to p86, 2nd para).
Thus, Lacuone et al also teach, demonstrated, and provide motivation to inhibiting/blocking more gene(s) in addition to Myb80 to achieve complete male sterility in plants.
Lacuone et al do not teach step b) of claim 1 and step a) of claim 3--inhibiting/blocking the expression of Dwarf11 gene.
To support Lacuone et al, Xiong et al teach inhibiting/blocking the expression of CYP703A2 gene by using antisense (p944, right col, 2nd to 4th paras), and demonstrated success (p937, right col, 1st para). Xiong et al teach inhibiting/blocking the expression of CYP703A2 gene and Myb80/MYB103/MS188 gene causes male sterility (p936, Abstract; p940, left col, last para; p941, fig 4d). Xiong et al teach that CYP703A2 gene encodes a P450 protein (p937, right col, 1st para).
Wang et al teach identifying and providing several Dwarf11 gene mutant (reduced activity) plant lines (the plant is Maize) (p7, left col, Materials and Methods).
Wang et al demonstrated that the Dwarf11 mutant (D11) plant displayed severely developmental abnormalities (p1, Abstract).
Moreover and critically, Wang et al demonstrated that the Dwarf11 mutant lines have reduced size of male organs tassels and anthers, and that some of Dwarf11 mutant lines displayed partial sterile, other Dwarf11 mutant lines displayed absolute barren, as compared to wild-type plant (p3, right col, last para in “Results”. According to Webster dictionary, “barren” refers to not reproducing, incapable of producing offspring.
Tong et al provide evidence that Dwarf11 genes (of Wang et al) also encode P450 like CYP703A2 of Xiong et al (p1, Abstract).
Thus, Wang et al not only and demonstrated blocking inhibiting/blocking the expression or activity of Dwarf11 gene, but also demonstrated the resultant phenotype of male sterility in plants, thus, provides a strong motivation to inhibit the gene as to inhibit Myb80, for the additive effect of producing male sterility in plants.
Regarding dependent claims
Lacuone et al teach introducing stop codons in the Myb103/Myb80 gene (p57, lines 8-27), resulting in knock-down or knockout mutations, the limitation of claim 2.
Wang et al teach that the mutant of Dwarf11 gene is a dominant negative mutant (p1, Abstract; Results in p3, right col, 1st to 3rd para), the limitation of claim 4.
As analyzed above, both Lacuone et al and Wang et al demonstrated producing male sterile plants, the limitation of claims 9 and 17.
Regarding claims 10-11, 18-19 as analyzed above, claims 1 and 3 are deemed obvious by the teaching of Lacuone et al in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al. Producing mutations is also deemed obvious as analyzed above. Both Lacuone et al and Wang et al demonstrated producing resultant plant or plant part. Thus, 10-11, 18-19 are deemed obvious.
Both the Brassica of Lacuone et al and the Maize of Wang et al are of family of Poaceae, the limitation of claims 14 and 20.
An invention would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art if any teaching, suggestion or motivation in prior art leading the one to combine the teaching(s) or suggestion(s) of the cited references to arrive the claimed invention.
In this case, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify and enhance the invention of Lacuone et al supported by Xiong et al, such that the method includes inhibiting/blocking another gene relevant to plant male fertility in addition to inhibiting Myb80, as taught by Lacuone et al and/or Xiong et al, particularly a Dwarf11 gene as taught by Wang et al. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because inhibiting Myb80 might not have been sufficient to cause complete male sterility in plants as found by Lacuone et al, and mutating/inhibiting Dwarf11 causes partial to “absolute” male sterility (Barren) as demonstrated by Wang et al. The expectation of success would have been high, because Lacuone et al demonstrated reduced fertility by inhibiting Myb80 and complete sterility by inhibiting Myb80 and additional genes. Inhibiting Dwarf11 in addition to inhibiting Myb80 would have been expected to reduce or abolish male fertility in plants.
Therefore, the invention would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacuone et al in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further viewed with evidence from UniProt and Tanabe et al (A Novel Cytochrome P450 Is Implicated in Brassinosteroid Biosynthesis via the Characterization of a Rice Dwarf Mutant, dwarf11, with Reduced Seed Length. The Plant Cell, Vol. p776–790, 2005).
Claims 1 and 3 have been analyzed above.
Claims 5 and 16 limit claims 1 and 3, wherein said MYB80 gene and said DWARF 11 gene are located on the same chromosome, wherein the physical distance between said Myb80 gene and said Dwarf11 gene in the genome of said plant or plant part is at most 1 Mbp.
Lacuone et al in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al do not explicitly teach the specific limitations.
According to MYB80 - Transcription factor MYB80 - Oryza sativa subsp. japonica (Rice) | UniProtKB (PDF attached), rice MYB80 gene is located in chromosome 4.
Tanabe et al provide evidence that rice Dwarf11 gene is located in chromosome 4 (p779, left col, 2nd para).
Accordingly, since Lacuone et al in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al teach inhibiting/blocking/mutating both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in a plant, as analyzed above, the inhibiting/blocking/mutating both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in the same chromosome, wherein the physical distance between said Myb80 gene and said Dwarfl 1 gene in the genome of said plant or plant part is at most 1 Mbp, is inherent in the rice plant.
Therefore, the dependent claims would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacuone et al in view of Xiong et al, Wang et al, and viewed with evidence from UniProt and Tanabe et al.
Claim 6 is drawn to a method for identifying or selecting a plant or plant part, comprising
a) providing a mixture of plants or plant parts resulting from a cross between a first plant and a second plant; wherein said first plant and/or said second plant have a heterozygous or homozygous mutation in the Myb80 gene and the Dwarf11 gene on the same chromosome; and
b) selecting a plant or plant part comprising a homozygous mutation in the Dwarf11 gene.
Lacuone et al further teach and demonstrated making homozygote mutations and crossing the homozygote line with another wild or mutant plant to produce F1 hybrid progeny, selecting the positive transformants, and harvesting/obtaining F1 hybrid seed (Example 6, p87, 2nd to 3rd para; p88, 1st para).
Lacuone et al in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al do not explicitly teach the specific limitation of “MYB80 gene and said DWARF 11 gene are located on the same chromosome, wherein the physical distance between said Myb80 gene and said Dwarf11 gene in the genome of said plant or plant part is at most 1 Mbp”.
As analyzed above, UniProt and Tanabe et al provide evidence that in rice Myb80 gene and said Dwarf11 gene are in the same chromosome 4 in the genome of said plant or plant part is at most 1 Mbp”.
Accordingly, since Lacuone et al in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al teach inhibiting/blocking/mutating both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in a plant, as analyzed above, the inhibiting/blocking/mutating both Myb80 and Dwarf11 in the same chromosome, wherein the physical distance between said Myb80 gene and said Dwarfl 1 gene in the genome of said plant or plant part is at most 1 Mbp, is inherent in the rice plant.
Regarding dependent claims, Lacuone et al further teach and demonstrated making homozygote mutations and crossing the homozygote line with another wild or mutant plant to produce F1 hybrid progeny, selecting the positive transformants, and harvesting/obtaining F1 hybrid seed including phenotype selection for fertility (Example 6, p87, 2nd to 3rd para; p88, 1st para), the limitation of claim 7.
Lacuone et al further teach using plant size difference between wild-type an mutant to select T1 progeny mutant plant (p83, 1st to 2nd paras), the limitation of claim 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify and enhance the invention of Lacuone et al supported by Xiong et al (including making homozygote mutation and crossing the mutant with mutant or wild lines, inhibiting/blocking both genes in the same chromosome in rice, and selecting mutant lines based on phenotypes, and as taught and demonstrated by Lacuone et al viewed with evidence from UniProt and Tanabe et al), such that the method includes inhibiting/blocking another gene relevant to plant male fertility in addition to inhibiting Myb80, as taught by Lacuone et al and/or Xiong et al, particularly a Dwarf11 gene as taught by Wang et al. The motivation and expectation of success would have been the same as that regards claims 1 and 3 as analyzed above, because making homozygote mutation and crossing are routine methods and taught and demonstrated for example by Lacuone et al.
Therefore, the invention would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacuone et al, in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al. The references cited are the same as the rejection to claims 1 and 3 above.
Claim 12 is drawn to a method comprising crossing a first plant having a homozygous mutation in Myb80 and in Dwarf11 with a second plant, and harvesting seeds.
for generating hybrid plants or plant parts (preamble).
As analyzed above, inhibiting/blocking both Myb80 and Dwarf11 including by making mutations are deemed obvious by the teaching of Lacuone et al, in view of Xiong et al and Wang et al.
Lacuone et al further teach and demonstrated making a homozygote mutation of Myb80/Myb103, and crossing the homozygote line with another wild or mutant plant to produce F1 hybrid progeny, and harvesting/obtaining F1 hybrid seed (Example 6, p87, 2nd to 3rd para; p88, 1st para).
In this case, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to modify and enhance the invention of Lacuone et al supported by Xiong et al (including making homozygote mutation and crossing the mutant with mutant or wild lines as taught and demonstrated by Lacuone et al), such that the method includes inhibiting/blocking another gene relevant to plant male fertility in addition to inhibiting Myb80, as taught by Lacuone et al and/or Xiong et al, particularly a Dwarf11 gene as taught by Wang et al. The motivation and expectation of success would have been the same as that regards claims 1 and 3 as analyzed above, because making homozygote mutation and crossing are routine methods and taught and demonstrated for example by Lacuone et al.
Therefore, the invention would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art.
Remarks
The following reference is relevant to instant application. For compact prosecution, the reference is filed but not cited by the examiner:
Phan et al (MYB80, a regulator of tapetal and pollen development, is functionally conserved in crops. Plant Mol Biol. 78:171–183, 2012).
SEQ ID NO: 170 (elected) is not required in the elected claims. According to the specification (Table 3 in page 131), SEQ ID NO: 170 is Dwarf11 protein sequence from Hordeum vulgare/Barley. For compact prosecution, the sequence is searched. See “Sequence Matches” below:
Sequence Matches
Against instant SEQ ID NO: 170
RESULT 1
F2E5E7_HORVV
ID F2E5E7_HORVV Unreviewed; 476 AA.
AC F2E5E7;
DT 31-MAY-2011, integrated into UniProtKB/TrEMBL.
DT 31-MAY-2011, sequence version 1.
DT 10-JUN-2026, entry version 80.
DE RecName: Full=Cytochrome P450 724B1 {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00067336};
DE AltName: Full=(22S)-22-hydroxycampesterol synthase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00077474};
OS Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare (Domesticated barley).
OC Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
OC Spermatophyta; Magnoliopsida; Liliopsida; Poales; Poaceae; BOP clade;
OC Pooideae; Triticodae; Triticeae; Hordeinae; Hordeum.
OX NCBI_TaxID=112509 {ECO:0000313|EMBL:BAK02569.1};
RN [1] {ECO:0000313|EMBL:BAK02569.1}
RP NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE.
RX PubMed=21415278; DOI=10.1104/pp.110.171579;
RA Matsumoto T., Tanaka T., Sakai H., Amano N., Kanamori H., Kurita K.,
RA Kikuta A., Kamiya K., Yamamoto M., Ikawa H., Fujii N., Hori K., Itoh T.,
RA Sato K.;
RT "Comprehensive sequence analysis of 24,783 barley full-length cDNAs derived
RT from 12 clone libraries.";
RL Plant Physiol. 156:20-28(2011).
CC -!- CATALYTIC ACTIVITY:
CC Reaction=campesterol + reduced [NADPH--hemoprotein reductase] + O2 =
CC (22S)-22-hydroxycampesterol + oxidized [NADPH--hemoprotein reductase]
CC + H2O + H(+); Xref=Rhea:RHEA:69835, Rhea:RHEA-COMP:11964, Rhea:RHEA-
CC COMP:11965, ChEBI:CHEBI:15377, ChEBI:CHEBI:15378, ChEBI:CHEBI:15379,
CC ChEBI:CHEBI:28623, ChEBI:CHEBI:57618, ChEBI:CHEBI:58210,
CC ChEBI:CHEBI:72331; Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00052777};
CC PhysiologicalDirection=left-to-right; Xref=Rhea:RHEA:69836;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00052777};
CC -!- COFACTOR:
CC Name=heme; Xref=ChEBI:CHEBI:30413;
CC Evidence={ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00001971,
CC ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR602401-1};
CC -!- PATHWAY: Hormone biosynthesis. {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00004972}.
CC -!- PATHWAY: Plant hormone biosynthesis; brassinosteroid biosynthesis.
CC {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00037910}.
CC -!- PATHWAY: Steroid biosynthesis. {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00060577}.
CC -!- SUBCELLULAR LOCATION: Membrane {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00004370}.
CC -!- SIMILARITY: Belongs to the cytochrome P450 family.
CC {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00010617, ECO:0000256|RuleBase:RU000461}.
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Copyrighted by the UniProt Consortium, see https://www.uniprot.org/terms
CC Distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License
CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR EMBL; AK371371; BAK02569.1; -; mRNA.
DR AlphaFoldDB; F2E5E7; -.
DR SMR; F2E5E7; -.
DR Gramene; HORVU.MOREX.r2.2HG0144250.1; HORVU.MOREX.r2.2HG0144250.1; HORVU.MOREX.r2.2HG0144250.
DR eggNOG; KOG0157; Eukaryota.
DR HOGENOM; CLU_001570_15_5_1; -.
DR OrthoDB; 3945418at2759; -.
DR GO; GO:0016020; C:membrane; IEA:UniProtKB-SubCell.
DR GO; GO:0020037; F:heme binding; IEA:InterPro.
DR GO; GO:0005506; F:iron ion binding; IEA:InterPro.
DR GO; GO:0004497; F:monooxygenase activity; IEA:UniProtKB-KW.
DR GO; GO:0016705; F:oxidoreductase activity, acting on paired donors, with incorporation or reduction of molecular oxygen; IEA:InterPro.
DR CDD; cd11043; CYP90-like; 1.
DR FunFam; 1.10.630.10:FF:000057; Cytochrome P450 724B1; 1.
DR Gene3D; 1.10.630.10; Cytochrome P450; 1.
DR InterPro; IPR001128; Cyt_P450.
DR InterPro; IPR017972; Cyt_P450_CS.
DR InterPro; IPR002401; Cyt_P450_E_grp-I.
DR InterPro; IPR036396; Cyt_P450_sf.
DR PANTHER; PTHR24286; CYTOCHROME P450 26; 1.
DR PANTHER; PTHR24286:SF37; CYTOCHROME P450 724B1; 1.
DR Pfam; PF00067; p450; 1.
DR PRINTS; PR00463; EP450I.
DR PRINTS; PR00385; P450.
DR SUPFAM; SSF48264; Cytochrome P450; 1.
DR PROSITE; PS00086; CYTOCHROME_P450; 1.
PE 2: Evidence at transcript level;
KW Heme {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022617, ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR602401-1};
KW Iron {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023004, ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR602401-1};
KW Membrane {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023136};
KW Metal-binding {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022723,
KW ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR602401-1};
KW Monooxygenase {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00023033,
KW ECO:0000256|RuleBase:RU000461};
KW Oxidoreductase {ECO:0000256|RuleBase:RU000461};
KW Transmembrane {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022692};
KW Transmembrane helix {ECO:0000256|ARBA:ARBA00022989}.
FT BINDING 422
FT /ligand="heme"
FT /ligand_id="ChEBI:CHEBI:30413"
FT /ligand_part="Fe"
FT /ligand_part_id="ChEBI:CHEBI:18248"
FT /note="axial binding residue"
FT /evidence="ECO:0000256|PIRSR:PIRSR602401-1"
SQ SEQUENCE 476 AA; 53366 MW; FEAB80D133146C4E CRC64;
Query Match 100.0%; Score 2488; Length 476;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 476; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MSMTVGDLVLAAPAILLALLLALVLSHFLPLLLNPKAPRGSFGWPLVGETLRFLTPHASN 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MSMTVGDLVLAAPAILLALLLALVLSHFLPLLLNPKAPRGSFGWPLVGETLRFLTPHASN 60
Qy 61 TLGSFLEDHCSRYGRVFKSHLFCTPTVVSCDQELNHFILQNEERLFQCSYPRPIHGILGK 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 TLGSFLEDHCSRYGRVFKSHLFCTPTVVSCDQELNHFILQNEERLFQCSYPRPIHGILGK 120
Qy 121 SSMLVVLGEDHKRLRNLALALVTSTKLKPSYLGDIERIALHIVGSWHGKGSNITFCEEAR 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 SSMLVVLGEDHKRLRNLALALVTSTKLKPSYLGDIERIALHIVGSWHGKGSNITFCEEAR 180
Qy 181 KFAFSVIVKQVLGLSPEEPVTAMILEDFLTFMKGLISFPLRIPGTPYAKAVQARERISST 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 KFAFSVIVKQVLGLSPEEPVTAMILEDFLTFMKGLISFPLRIPGTPYAKAVQARERISST 240
Qy 241 VKGIIEERRKADCCKRDDFLNVLLSTDELSDEEKVSFVLDSLLGGYETTSLMISMVVYFL 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 VKGIIEERRKADCCKRDDFLNVLLSTDELSDEEKVSFVLDSLLGGYETTSLMISMVVYFL 300
Qy 301 GQSAQDLDLVKREHQGIRSTKAKEECLSSEDYKKMEYTQHVINEALRCGNIVKFVHRKAL 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 GQSAQDLDLVKREHQGIRSTKAKEECLSSEDYKKMEYTQHVINEALRCGNIVKFVHRKAL 360
Qy 361 KDVRYKEYLIPSGWKVLPVFSAVHLNPSLHGNAQQFQPCRWEGPSQGTSKKFTPFGGGTR 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 KDVRYKEYLIPSGWKVLPVFSAVHLNPSLHGNAQQFQPCRWEGPSQGTSKKFTPFGGGTR 420
Qy 421 LCPGSELAKVEAAFFLHHLVLNFRWKIDGDDIPMAYPYVEFPRGLPIEIEPICSES 476
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 LCPGSELAKVEAAFFLHHLVLNFRWKIDGDDIPMAYPYVEFPRGLPIEIEPICSES 476
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0311. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bratislav Stankovic, can be reached on 571-270-0305. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Wayne Zhong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights