DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are under examination on the merits.
Claim 15 is canceled.
Priority
Claims 1-14 receive the U.S. effective filing date 1 Sep 2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Improper use of articles; claim 1, line 2 reads, “…encoding at least one regeneration factor…” but should read, “…encoding a regeneration factor…”.
Typographical error; claim 12, line 2 reads, “…wherein the pant tissue…” but should read, “…wherein the plant tissue…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code [p.7, ¶2]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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.
Claims 7-9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7-9 & 12 variously recite lists of proteins, promoters or tissues after which Applicant indicates ‘preferably’ that the object being limited to is one specific protein, promotor, or tissue. Because of this, it is unclear if Applicant is limiting claims to the narrowly recited ‘preferred’ objects (i.e. singular), or if they encompass the broader list of objects (i.e. group) recited in each of the respective claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation of the group consisting of PLT1—PLT7, and the claim also recites “preferably PLT1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 7 also recites the broad recitation of the group consisting of WUS1—WUS3, WOX2A, WOX4-5 & WOX9, and the claim also recites “preferably WOX5” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation of any and all inducible promoters, and the claim also recites “preferably a GVG-inducible promoter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation of any and all inducible promoters, and the claim also recites “preferably XVE-inducible promoter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation of tissues encompassing any leaf, and the claim also recites “preferably…a cotyledon, a first true leaf, and a young (axillary) leaf” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. As such, claims 7-9 & 12 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheres [International Application WO 2019/211296; Published 7 Nov 2019] in view of Quong [U.S. Patent US6,793,937; Published 26 Sep 2002].
Scheres teaches the use of an inducible, steroid-based system for generating plant shoots via tissue culture as in Applicant’s claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 & 11-14. Scheres teaches such a system utilizes the morphogenetic genes encoding PLT, WUS/WOX, and/or WIND1 polypeptides whose expression is increased to generate shoots from plant tissue [p.1, l.37—p.2, l.11; p.12, l.17-40; p.13, l.11-18].
They teach a transgenic, inducible promoter and transformation of recalcitrant plants to demonstrate shoot generation using activation of regeneration factors via activator substances [Claims 12-4; p.4, l.26-30; p.27, l.20—p.28, l.19; p.30, l.33-39]. They teach these morphogenetic genes are activated by contacting plant tissue with substances such as steroids including dexamethasone or beta-estradiol in growing media [p.28, l.13-15; p.4, l.26-30].
Scheres does not teach the hydrogel beads, which are alginate, to deliver the active substances used in their system to induce expression of morphogenetic genes.
Quong teaches the delivery of active substances to crops (i.e. plants) via use of hydrogel microbeads, as in Applicant’s claims 2, 6 & 10. Quong includes use of alginate microbeads [col.2, l.3-19; col.4, l.48-66]. They teach hydrogels can be used to deliver various biologically active compounds of interest to crops [col.6, l.27-33]. They teach production of microbeads from 1-1000 micrometers in diameter [col.3, l.53-59].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shoot-induction system taught by Scheres, which relied on introduction of an activator substance to stimulate expression of morphogenetic genes, to one that delivers the trans-activator substance to such tissues via alginate hydrogel beads as taught by Quong.
This is because plant tissue culture often relies on the introduction of chemicals or nutrients via a gelled or semi-solid media (typically agar), as described in Scheres [p.46, l.22-28 ‘Induction medium’]. One skilled in the art would reasonably search for various alternative gelling or semi-solid agents capable of delivering active ingredients to plant tissues undergoing tissue culture (i.e. induction media), and potentially improving on existing methods. Searching for such materials that could be used to deliver active or activating ingredients, one discovers Quong who teaches the several benefits of alginate microbeads as active ingredient carriers. Quong teaches such alginate carrier substances are good at carrying pheromones or other biologically active signal molecules, and have advantages of stable handling & extended release of active compounds.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to obtain the described benefits of hydrogel microbeads, such as high biological compatibility and improved handling characteristics [col.4, l.19-33], in delivering the substances required to activate expression and trigger the shoot-inducing genes in Scheres’ morphogenetic system. This morphogenetic system was already known to provide advantages Scheres’ describes over traditional tissue culture approaches utilizing auxins [p.1, l.3-16 & l.29-35]. Use of hydrogel microbeads would further improve delivery of the requisite activating substances, such as dexamethasone and/or beta-estradiol.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 7 & 11-14; Scheres teaches inducible expression of regeneration (i.e. morphogenetic) factors including PLT, WUS/WOX, and/or WIND1 to be used in tissue culture or regeneration of plant shoots from transgenic plant leaves [p.31, l.13-22 & l.34-38; p.32, l.23-32]. Scheres teaches expression is induced by contact with an activating substance (i.e. binding to a substance triggering transactivator) [p.4, l.26-30]. Quong teaches delivery of active substances to plant cells using alginate microbeads [col.2, l.3-19; col.4, l.48-66].
Regarding claims 5 & 8-9; the use of the trans-activator GVG and/or XVE protein is previously described by Scheres [p.44, l.4-23].
Regarding claims 2, 6 & 10; the use of alginate as hydrogel beads as small as 1 micrometer – 5 millimeter in diameter to deliver active biological compounds is described by Quong [col.3, l.53-58; col.4, l.48-66].
For these reasons, claims 1-14 are rejected as obvious in view of prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:30 - 5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (571)270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEITH R. WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/ SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights