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 1-17 are pending and examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites SEQ ID “No.2” which is not the appropriate representation for
sequence identifiers. The limitation “SEQ ID No.” should be changed to --SEQ ID NO:-- throughout the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “A” resistance gene, and should therefore use a definitive article when referring back to a previous claim: the limitation “A” should be replaced with the limitation --The--.
Claims 9 and 10 present the same issue and are therefore objected to for the same reason as provided for claim 8.
Claims 13 and 16 also present the same issue by reciting the limitation “a” resistance gene and are therefore objected to for the same reason as provided for claims 8, 9 and 10.
Appropriate action is advised.
Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected on the judicially-created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and/or a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons:
The claims nucleic and amino acid sequences appear to represent different genes conferring resistance to different Peronospora farinosa races. Therefore, these sequences do not share a substantial feature or a common use that flows from the shared substantial structural feature.
In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1) (emphasis provided).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The invention as encompassed by instant claims 7-10, 16 and 17 is directed to a naturally occurring product/phenomenon without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a resistance gene that confers resistance to downy mildew in spinach plants and a method for establishing the presence of said gene which is also considered a natural phenomenon. This natural product/phenomenon was isolated from, and observed in, S. oleracea (p. 6, penultimate and last ¶) .
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 7 is merely directed the naturally occurring resistance gene that is not used in a practical application. The same is true of the method of claim 16: the method only requires selecting a plant having resistance yet does not use this plant in a practical application.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in the claims that are considered an inventive concept. In other words, one merely exposes the plant to downy mildew and observes whether there is resistance which is indicative of the presence of the naturally occurring resistance gene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a spinach plant comprising one or more resistance genes that encode a protein comprising an amino acid domain having “preferably” at least 99% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 present the same issue and are therefore rejected for the same reason as provided for claim 1.
Claim 11 is drawn to a method for providing a spinach plant that is resistant to downy mildew by modifying a resistance gene that encodes for a protein comprising an amino acid sequence with at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite because the method steps required for “modifying” a resistance gene having at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 is unclear. For example, it is not clear if the modification occurs anywhere within SEQ ID NO: 2 or if the modification only occurs with the sequence having 2% sequence variation to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claims 4-6, 10 and 12-17 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim and for failing to remedy the issues of indefiniteness.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 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 making a spinach plant comprising the coding sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21, does not reasonably provide enablement for making and/or using the plants and methods as broadly claimed wherein said plants are resistant to downy mildew as broadly claimed. 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/use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In In re Wands (8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988)), the CAFC considered the issue of enablement in molecular biology. The CAFC summarized eight factors to be considered in a determination of "undue experimentation". These factors include: (a) the quantity of experimentation; (b) the amount of guidance presented; (c) the presence or absence of working examples; (d) the nature of the invention; (e) the state of the prior art; (f) the predictability of the prior art; (g) the breadth of the claims; and (h) the relative skill in the art. The factors are analyzed in turn for the instant case as follows:
The claims are broadly drawn to a spinach plant that is resistant to any race of Peronospora farinosa (Pf) that comprises one or more resistance genes encoding proteins comprising an amino acid domain having at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, seeds produced from said plants, one or more resistance genes encoding proteins comprising an amino acid domain having at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, methods of providing resistance comprising introducing said gene or crossing a plant comprising said gene with another plant, methods for selecting said plant, and wherein said gene may have as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 21 or a protein having as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 22.
Meanwhile, the specification teaches the identification of a novel candidate dominant resistance gene “CC-NBS-LRR” including T72 comprising the domain of SEQ ID NO: 2 and having the nucleic and amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 and 22, respectively (p. 6, last ¶). Plants comprising this gene were found susceptible to Pfs 8 and 9, and resistant to Pfs 1-7, 10 and 12-19 (Table 2).
However, the specification fails to teach that the one or more resistance genes comprising any structure as broadly claimed so long as it comprises SEQ ID NO: 2 retains functional activity and confers resistance to any Pf race.
Moreover, the specification fails to teach the critical domain or motifs a resistance gene that confers resistance to any Pf race, and further fails to provide working examples of plants comprising said genus of genes.
This guidance is essential in light of the fact that the instant specification teaches that the genes as encompassed by the claims does not provide resistance to the Pfs as broadly claimed. For example, the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 and which encodes the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 22 and comprises the CC-NBS-LRR domain of SEQ ID NO: 2 does not confer resistance to all Pfs (e.g., see Table 2).
In light of this finding, and the fact that all resistance genes are only required to comprise SEQ ID NO: 2, and the fact that the resistance genes as encompassed by the claims have sequence variation (e.g., see Tables 3 and 4), the skilled practitioner would be unable to predictably make the plants or practice the methods as claimed wherein the resistance genes vary from SEQ ID NO: 21 or 22, respectively.
This guidance is also critical because the art identified 139 NBS-LRR genes in the spinach genome that have been classified into six categories based on receptor domains, coiled coil motifs and LRRs with coiled coiled/NBS/LRR and NBS/LRR representing 40 and 36% of the genes, respectively (Xu et al, 2017, Nature Communications,8:1-10; see p. 4, col. 2, last ¶).
In fact, the art teaches that even small changes in the amino acid sequence in the LRR may lead to a loss of LRR function resulting in changes in plant resistance to pathogens (Gao et al, 2022, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23:1-10; see p. 5, last ¶ bridging p. 6).
Because the skilled artisan appreciates that even slight changes to CC-NBS-LRR genes can alter function, the skilled practitioner would not expect to predictably make a plant comprising a gene encoding a protein comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 or wherein the gene comprises a nucleic acid sequence having as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 21 or an amino acid sequence having as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 22 that retains functional activity to confer Pf resistance as broadly claimed.
Therefore, in light of the breadth of the claims, the failure of the specification to teach a structure-function correlation for the resistance genes as claimed, the state of the art which teaches that even small changes alter function and the lack of working examples the skilled practitioner would resort to impermissible undue trial and error experimentation to make the plants and practice the methods as claimed which is tantamount to excessive experimentation.
Regarding claims 5 and 15 which are directed to “deposit number NCIMB 44063”, it is noted that since the seed claimed is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a reproducible method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If a seed is not so obtainable or available, a deposit thereof may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
The specification teaches that a spinach plant with deposit number NCIMB 44063 was deposited. However, the specification does teach the parental varieties used to arrive at said deposit and does not disclose a reproducible process to obtain the exact same seed in each occurrence and it is not apparent if such a seed is readily available to the public.
If the deposit of the seed is made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating the seed have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the seed will be irrevocably, and without restriction or condition, released to the public upon the issuance of a patent would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
A minimum deposit of 625 seeds is considered sufficient in the ordinary case to assure availability through the period for which a deposit must be maintained.
If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number showing that
(a) during the pendency of the application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be tested (see 37 CFR 1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become unviable.
Applicant has NOT deposited the seeds at the NCIMB in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 by indicating all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent.
Applicant has also not indicated an intention to deposit the seeds in accordance with the Budapest Treaty, and by way of affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stated that the seed will be irrevocably, and without restriction or condition, released to the public upon the issuance of a patent.
Accordingly, Applicant needs to provide a signed statement indicating compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, the NCIMB Accession No. and evidence of deposit to overcome this rejection. Alternatively, Applicant may by way of affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, state that the seed will be irrevocably, and without restriction or condition, released to the public upon the issuance of a patent.
Compliance with this requirement may be held in abeyance until the application is otherwise in condition for an allowance.
Claims 1-17 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 claim(s) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Instant claims 1-17 are broadly drawn to a spinach plant that is resistant to any race of Pf that comprises one or more resistance genes encoding proteins comprising an amino acid domain having at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, seeds produced from said plants, one or more resistance genes encoding proteins comprising an amino acid domain having at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2, methods of providing resistance comprising introducing said gene or crossing a plant comprising said gene with another plant, methods for selecting said plant, and wherein said gene may have as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 21 or a protein having as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 22.
Meanwhile, the specification describes the identification of a novel candidate dominant resistance gene “CC-NBS-LRR” including T72 comprising the domain of SEQ ID NO: 2 and having the nucleic and amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 and 22, respectively (p. 6, last ¶). Plants comprising this gene were found susceptible to Pfs 8 and 9, and resistant to Pfs 1-7, 10 and 12-19 (Table 2).
The written description requirement may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by disclosing relevant and identifying characteristics such as structural or other physical and/or chemical properties, by disclosing functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. See Eli Lilly,119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Here, the specification fails to describe that the one or more resistance genes comprising any structure as broadly claimed so long as it comprises SEQ ID NO: 2 retains functional activity and confers resistance to any Pf race. The specification further fails to describe that these sequences can be “modified” to confer resistance as encompassed by claims 11 and 12.
Moreover, the specification fails to describe the critical domain or motifs a resistance gene that confers resistance to any Pf race, and further fails to provide working examples of plants comprising said genus of genes.
This description is essential in light of the fact that the instant specification describes that the genes as encompassed by the claims do not provide resistance to the Pfs as broadly claimed. For example, the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 21 and which encodes the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 22 and comprises the CC-NBS-LRR domain of SEQ ID NO: 2 does not confer resistance to all Pfs (e.g., see Table 2).
In light of this finding, and the fact that all resistance genes are only required to comprise SEQ ID NO: 2, and the fact that the resistance genes as encompassed by the claims have sequence variation (e.g., see Tables 3 and 4), the skilled practitioner would not be of the opinion that Applicant possess the plants or the methods as claimed wherein the resistance genes vary from SEQ ID NO: 21 or 22, respectively.
This description is also critical because the art identified 139 NBS-LRR genes in the spinach genome that have been classified into six categories based on receptor domains, coiled coil motifs and LRRs with coiled coiled/NBS/LRR and NBS/LRR representing 40 and 36% of the genes, respectively (Xu et al, see p. 4, col. 2, last ¶).
In fact, the art describes that even small changes in the amino acid sequence in the LRR may lead to a loss of LRR function resulting in changes in plant resistance to pathogens (Gao et al, see p. 5, last ¶ bridging p. 6).
Because the skilled artisan appreciates that even slight changes to CC-NBS-LRR genes can alter function, the skilled practitioner would not be led to believe that Applicant possesses a plant comprising a gene encoding a protein comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 98% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 or wherein the gene comprises a nucleic acid sequence having as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 21 or an amino acid sequence having as little as 96% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 22 that retains functional activity to confer Pf resistance as broadly claimed.
Therefore, in light of the breadth of the claims, the failure of the specification to describe the structures that confer downy mildew resistance as broadly claimed, the lack of working examples and the state of the art, the skilled practitioner would not believe that Applicant was in possession of the plants and methods as claimed.
Regarding the development of the plant deposited under NCIMB 44063, 35 USC 112 (a) states that “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. In evaluating written description, the threshold question is what is “an adequate written description”. This is question of fact that is evaluated by the factfinder (i.e., the examiner). MPEP 2163.04 emphasizes this: “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).”
The instant claims are directed to plant deposited under NCIMB 44063, plants produced therefrom and methods of using said plant. In reviewing whether the specification provides an adequate written description for this plant deposited under NCIMB 44063, the Examiner analyzes how plant lines are evaluated in the public domain. This review concludes the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety is a trait table and genetic information supplied through a breeding history.
The specification provides a limited description of a plant deposited under NCIMB 44063 yet fails to provide the breeding history to arrive at said variety.
Because a breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety the applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development I s sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, USDA https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, accessed 05/01/2023).
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (UPOV, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, April 6, 2017, See Notes 14 and 30).
Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety (See Ex Parte C, USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) and Ex Parte McGowen, Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the Applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table alone is insufficient to differentiate varieties. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun et al (2011, Plant Physiol., 155:645-655) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false (p. 645, col. 1). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (p. 645, col. 2 and p. 646, col. 1). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar (Großkinsky et al, 2015, J. Exp. Bot., 66:5429-5440; p. 5430, col. 1, ¶2, and col. 2, ¶3). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed to adequately describe a newly developed plant.
The above factual evidence provides a reasonable basis that a breeding history is necessary written description. With this information the examiner has met the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, as the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 USC 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary for the adequate description of a plant.
Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
MPEP 2163 (I) states
The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").
MPEP 2163 (I) states
The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").
The breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, in this case, all names of both parents, is not known to the public, the public does not have all needed information for assessing potential infringement.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification to provide the breeding history used to develop the plant deposited under NCIMB 44063. When identifying the breeding history, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant cultivar and all other potential names for the claimed cultivar.
If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent.
Applicant should identify the breeding method used, such as single seed descent, bulk method, backcross method, etc., and the filial generation in which the instant plant was chosen. Information pertaining to the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents as well as the instant plant should be set forth.
Applicant is reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant cultivar). If there any patent applications or patents in which sibs or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the sibs or parents should be disclosed.
This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
Finally, it is noted that the specification has failed to describe, in fact, that “one or more” resistance genes from the deposit number NCIMB 44063 confer resistance as broadly claimed. The specification has failed to describe which of the particular nucleic or amino acid sequences as claimed are comprised in the deposit. As a result, the skilled practitioner would be unable to determine which “one or more” resistance genes in said deposit may be derived or obtained in order to confer Pf resistance as broadly claimed.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The closest prior art is den Boer et al (Patent No. US 11,820,993 B2) which teaches the domain of SEQ ID NO: 10 having 87% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant inventio for conferring resistant to Pfs (e.g., see Attachment; see also claim 1). The domain of SEQ ID NO: 10 is comprised in SEQ ID NO :12 and 13 as taught by den Boer et al (e.g., see col. 7). However, the sequences as taught by den Boer et al do not have the requisite sequence percent identity as instantly claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DEVEAU-ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2828. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 4pm.
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 at (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.
/JASON DEVEAU ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
ATTACHMENT
Alignment of SEQ ID NO: 10 from den Boer et al with SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant invention
US-17-085-897-10
Sequence 10, US/17085897
Patent No. 11820993
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel B.V.
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peronospora resistance in spinacia oleracea alpha wolf-26 allele
FILE REFERENCE: L/P171534US00/JED
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/17/085,897
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2020-10-30
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US17/085,597
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2020-10-30
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 16
SEQ ID NO 10
LENGTH: 464
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Spinacia oleracea
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Amino acid sequence encoded by amplicon of LRR domain of
alpha-WOLF 26
Query Match 87.6%; Score 444; Length 464;
Best Local Similarity 91.8%;
Matches 90; Conservative 2; Mismatches 6; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 VDITLSCCEYLQEMPVLSKLPHLKSLNLFKFCKLEYMESRSSSSSSDTEAATPELPTFFP 60
|||||||||||||||||||||||||| || ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 218 VDITLSCCEYLQEMPVLSKLPHLKSLYLFIFCKLEYMESRSSSSSSDTEAATPELPTFFP 277
Qy 61 SLKKLTLDGLKKLKGLGNRRSSSFPRLSKLVIWECPDL 98
||:|||| |:||||||||||||||||||| | |||||
Db 278 SLEKLTLWYLEKLKGLGNRRSSSFPRLSKLEIRECPDL 315
Alignment of SEQ ID NO: 12 from den Boer et al with SEQ ID NO: 21 of the instant invention
US-17-085-897-12
Sequence 12, US/17085897
Patent No. 11820993
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel B.V.
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peronospora resistance in spinacia oleracea alpha wolf-26 allele
FILE REFERENCE: L/P171534US00/JED
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/17/085,897
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2020-10-30
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US17/085,597
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2020-10-30
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 16
SEQ ID NO 12
LENGTH: 3525
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: Spinacia oleracea
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Coding sequence of the alpha-WOLF 26 allele
Query Match 79.5%; Score 2749.8; Length 3525;
Best Local Similarity 89.2%;
Matches 3048; Conservative 0; Mismatches 327; Indels 42; Gaps 6;
Qy 1 ATGGCTGAAATCGGATACTCGGTTTGTTCAAAACTTATTGAAGTGATGGGCAGTAAGATC 60
||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| | ||||| || |||||||| |||||| || |
Db 1 ATGGCCGAAATCGGATACTCGGTTTGTGCGAAACTCATCGAAGTGATTGGCAGTGAGCTG 60
Qy 61 ATTAAAGAGATTTGCGACATGTGGGGTTACAAAACTCATCTTGAAGACCTCAACAAATCT 120
|| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||
Db 61 ATCAAAGAGATTTGCGACACATGGGGTTACAAATCTCTTCTTGAGGACCTCAACAAAACT 120
Qy 121 GTCTTGACAATCAAAAATGTGCTCATGGATGCCGAGGTGAAGCGGGATCTTTCCCGTGTA 180
|| ||||| ||| || || ||||| | |||| ||||| |||||| ||| | ||| |
Db 121 GTATTGACGGTCAGGAACGTTCTCATTCAGGCCGGGGTGATGCGGGAGCTTACTAGTGAA 180
Qy 181 CAACAGGGTTACATTGCAGAACTTAAGGATGTTGTTTACGATGCTGATGATTTGTTCGAT 240
||||| |||| ||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||
Db 181 CAACAAGGTTTCATTGCAGACCTTAAAGATGTTGTTTATGATGCTGATGACTTGTTCGAC 240
Qy 241 GAGTTCCTCACTCTTGCTGAGCTCAAACAGATTGATGGCAACTACAAGGGTGGTGGTAAA 300
|||| ||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| ||
Db 241 AAGTTACTCACTCGTGCTGAGCGAAAACAGATTGATGGAAAC---------------GAA 285
Qy 301 TTCTCTGAAAAGGTACGTCGTTTCTTTTCTTCTAATAAGGAGAAGATGGATCAAGCTTAC 360
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||| || | ||||| | ||||||||||
Db 286 ATCTCTGAAAAGGTACGTCGTTTCTTTTCCTCTAGTA---ACAAGATCGGTCAAGCTTAC 342
Qy 361 GACATGTCTCGTAAGGTTAAGAAAATTAAGAAGCAGTTGGATGAAATTGTTGATAGGCAT 420
|||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 343 TACATGTCTCGTAAGGTTAAGGAAATTAAGAAGCAGTTGGATGAAATTGTTGATAGGCAT 402
Qy 421 ACAAAATTTGGGTTTATTGTTGATTATAAACCTATTATTAGGAGAAGGG---------AG 471
|||||||||||||||| || ||| | || |||| || |||| ||||| |
Db 403 ACAAAATTTGGGTTTAGTGCTGAGTTTATACCTGTTTGTAGGGAAAGGGGGAACGAGAGG 462
Qy 472 GAAACATGTTCTTACGTAGATGCCAAGGAGATTATCGGGAGAGATAAGGATAAGGATGCT 531
|||||| |||| || |||||| |||| | ||| | ||||| ||||| |||||| ||| |
Db 463 GAAACACGTTCATATATAGATGTCAAGAATATTCTTGGGAGGGATAAAGATAAGAATGAT 522
Qy 532 ATCATTGATATGTTGCTAGATCGTAATGATAAGGAGGGTTGTAGTTTTCTGACCATTGTG 591
|||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| || | ||||||||| |||||||| |||
Db 523 ATCATTGATAGGTTGCTTAATCGTAATGATAATGAAGCTTGTAGTTTCCTGACCATAGTG 582
Qy 592 GGGGTTGGAGGGTTGGGGAAAACTGCTCTTGCCCAACTTGTGTATAATGATGAAAAGGTC 651
|| | ||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||
Db 583 GGAGCGGGAGGATTGGGAAAAACTGCTCTTGCCCAACTTGTGTTCAATGATGAAAGGGTC 642
Qy 652 ATAAAAGAGTTCGAGGGTTTGAGGTATTGGGCTTGTGTCTCTGATCAAGACGGGGAGGAA 711
| || ||||| | | |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||| ||
Db 643 AAAATTGAGTTTCATGATTTGAGGTATTGGGTTTGTGTCTCTGATCAAGATGGGGGCCAA 702
Qy 712 TTTGATGTGAAAGCAATCCTTTGTAAGATTCTAGAATCAGTTACTAAGGTGAAACCTGAT 771
||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||| |||||||||| |||| ||||
Db 703 TTTGATGTGAAAGAAATCCTTTGTAAGATTTTAGAGGTGGTTACTAAGGAGAAAGTTGAT 762
Qy 772 GGTAGTTCCGGATTGGAATTGGTGCAAAACCAATTTCAGGAGAGATTAAGGGGAAAGAAG 831
|||||||| |||||||||||| |||| ||||||||| |||| ||||| |||||||||
Db 763 AATAGTTCCGCATTGGAATTGGTACAAAGCCAATTTCAAGAGAAGTTAAGAGGAAAGAAG 822
Qy 832 TACCTCCTTGTTCTTGATGATGTATGGAATGAGGACCGTGAGAAGTGGCTTTCTTTGAAA 891
||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||| |||| ||
Db 823 TACTTCCTTGTTCTTGATGACGTATGGAACGAGGATCGTGAGAAGTGGCTTCGTTTGGAA 882
Qy 892 AAGTTCTTAATGTTAGGTCAAAGGGGAAGCAGGATTATGGTAACCACTCGTTCTAAGACG 951
|||| |||||||| |||||| ||||||||| | || | || ||||| ||||| ||| |
Db 883 GAGTTGTTAATGTTGGGTCAAGGGGGAAGCAAGGTTGTAGTGACCACACGTTCAGAGAAG 942
Qy 952 ACGACAACCATCATAGGGGATAAACATGCCTATGAATTACAAGGTTTATCCCAAGAGGAT 1011
|| ||| |||||||| | | |||| ||| | | || |||| || | ||| ||
Db 943 ACAGCAAATGTCATAGGGAAAAGACATTTTTATACACTGGAATGTTTGTCACCAGATTAT 1002
Qy 1012 TCATGGCACTTGTTTGAGATTTCTGCATTTGACA------ATGAATGTATCCGCAATAAT 1065
|||||| ||| ||||| || || || ||| | | |||| | || |
Db 1003 TCATGGAGCTTATTTGAAATGTCGGCTTTTCAGAAAGGGCATGAGCAGGAAAACCATGAC 1062
Qy 1066 GAGTTAGTTGAGATTGGGAAGAAGATTGTTGAAAAATGTTATAGCATTCCTCTTGCTATA 1125
|| ||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| || ||| |||||||||
Db 1063 GAACTAGTTGATATTGGGAAAAAGATTGTTGAAAAATGTTATAACAATCCACTTGCTATA 1122
Qy 1126 AAGGTGGTAGGAAGTCTTCTATTTGGCCAGGAGAAAGTTAAGTGGCAGTCATTTGAAGCG 1185
| |||||||||||||||||| | ||| |||||| | |||||||| |||||||||| |
Db 1123 ACGGTGGTAGGAAGTCTTCTTTATGGAGAGGAGATAAGTAAGTGGCGGTCATTTGAAATG 1182
Qy 1186 AGTGGATTGTCCCAAATTGGCAATGGTGATAATCAGATTATGTCAATATTAAAGCTCAGT 1245
|||| ||| || ||||||||||||| |||||| ||||| || | |||||||||||||||
Db 1183 AGTGAGTTGGCCAAAATTGGCAATGGGGATAATAAGATTTTGCCGATATTAAAGCTCAGT 1242
Qy 1246 TACCATAATCTTATACCCTCGTTGAAGAGTTGCTTCAGTTATTGTGCAGTGTTTCCCAAG 1305
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| || ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1243 TACCATAATCTTATACCCTCGTTGAAGAGTTGTTTTAGTTATTGTGCAGTGTTTCCCAAG 1302
Qy 1306 GATCATGAAATAAAGAAGGAGATGTTGATTTATCTTTGGATAGCACAAGGATACGTTGTG 1365
||| || ||||||| ||||||||||||||| | |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||
Db 1303 GATTATAAAATAAAAAAGGAGATGTTGATTGACCTTTGGATAGCACAAGGATATGTTGTG 1362
Qy 1366 GCACTTGATGGAGGTCAAAGTATAGAAGATGCTGCCGAAGAACATTTTGTAATTTTGTTA 1425
| | |||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||
Db 1363 CCGTTGGATGGAGGTCAAAGCATAGAACATGCTGCCGAGGAACATTTTGTAATTTTATTA 1422
Qy 1426 CGGAGATGTTTCTTTCAAGATGTAAAGAAGGATTTTCTTGGTGATGTTGATTCTGTTAAA 1485
|||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||
Db 1423 CGGAGATGTTTCTTTCAAGATGTAGTGAAGGATGAATACGGTGATGTTAATTCTGTTAAA 1482
Qy 1486 ATCCACGACTTGATGCACGACGTCGCTCAAGAAGTAGGGAGAGAGGAAATCTGTATAGTG 1545
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1483 ATCCACGACTTGATGCACGACGTCGCTCAAGAAGTAGGGAGAGAGGAAATCTGTATAGTG 1542
Qy 1546 AATGATAATACAAAGAACTTGGGTGATAAAATCCGTCATGTACATTGTGATGTCAATAGA 1605
|||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1543 AATGCTAATACAAAGAACTTGGGTGATAAAATCCGTCATGTACATTGTGATGTCAATAGA 1602
Qy 1606 TATGCACAAAGAGTCTCTCTGTGTAGCCATAAGATTCGTTCGTATATTGGTGGTAAATGT 1665
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1603 TATGCACAAAGAGTCTCTCTGTGTAGCCATAAGATTCGTTCGTATATTGGTGGTAAATGT 1662
Qy 1666 GAAAAACGTTGGGTGGATACACTAATAGACAAGTGGATGTGTCTTAGGGTGTTGGACTTG 1725
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||
Db 1663 GAAAAACGTTGGGTGGATACACTAATAGACAAGTGGATGTGTCTTAGGATGTTGGACTTG 1722
Qy 1726 TCAAGGTCGGATGTTAAAAATTTGCCTAATTCAATAGGTAAATTGTTGCACTTGAGGTGT 1785
|||||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |
Db 1723 TCAAGGCCGGATGTTAAAAATTTGCCTGATTCAATAGGTAAATTGTTGCACTTGAGGTAT 1782
Qy 1786 CTTAACCTGTCTTATAATG---ATCTGTTGATACTCCCTGATGCAATTACAAGACTGCAT 1842
||||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1783 CTTAACCTGTCTTGTAATGATTATCTGTTGATACTCCCTGATGCAATTACAAGACTGCAT 1842
Qy 1843 AATTTGCAGACACTGCTTTTAAAAGATTGCGGAAGTTTAATGGAGTTGCCAAAAGATTTT 1902
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||
Db 1843 AATTTGCAGACACTGCTTTTAAAAGATTGCGGAAGTTTAAAGGAGTTGCCAAAAGATTTT 1902
Qy 1903 TGCAAATTGGTCAAACTGAGACACTTGGATTTATGGGGTTGTGATGATTTGATTGGTATG 1962
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| | |||||||||||||
Db 1903 TGCAAATTGGTCAAACTGAGACACTTGGATTTAAGGGGTTGTCAGTGTTTGATTGGTATG 1962
Qy 1963 CCATTGGGAATGGATATGCTAACTAGTCTTAGAGTACTGCCATACTTTGTGGTGGGTAGG 2022
|||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
Db 1963 CCATTGGGAATGGATAGGCTAACTAGTCTTAGAGTACTGCCATTCTTTGTGGTGGGTAGG 2022
Qy 2023 AAGAAACAAAGTGTTGATGATGAGCTGAAAGCCCTAAAAGGCCTCACCGAGATAAAAGGC 2082
||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2023 AAGGAACAAAGTGTTGATGATGAGCTGAAAGCCCTAAAAGGCCTCACCGAGATAAAAGGC 2082
Qy 2083 GACATTGATATCAAAATCTGTTCCAATTATAGAATAGTTGAAGGCATAAATGACACAGGA 2142
|||| ||| | |||| ||| || |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||
Db 2083 TCCATTCGTATTAGAATCCATTCAAAGTATAGAATAGTTGAAGGCATGAATGACACAGGA 2142
Qy 2143 GGAGCTGGGTATTTGAAGAGCATGAAACATCTCACTGGGGTTAATATTATATTTGATTAT 2202
||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||| ||| |
Db 2143 GGAGCTGCTTATTTGAAGAGCATGAAACATCTCACGGGGGTTGATATTACATT------T 2196
Qy 2203 AAAGGTGTATTTGTTAACCCTGAAGCTGTGTTGGAAACCCTAGAGCCACCTTCAAATATC 2262
|| |||| || |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2197 AAGGGTGGATGTGTTAACCCTGAAGCTGTGTTGGAAACCCTAGAGCCACCTTCAAATATC 2256
Qy 2263 AAGAGCTTATCTATAGATAATTACGATGGTACAACAATTCCAGTATGGGGAAGAGCAGAG 2322
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2257 AAGAGCTTATCTATAGATAATTACGATGGTACAACAATTCCAGTATGGGGAAGAGCAGAG 2316
Qy 2323 ATTAATTGGGCAATCTCCCTCTCACATCTTGTCGACATCACGCTTAGTTGTTGTGAATAT 2382
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2317 ATTAATTGGGCAATCTCCCTCTCACATCTTGTCGACATCACGCTTAGTTGTTGTGAATAT 2376
Qy 2383 TTGCAGGAGATGCCAGTGCTGAGTAAACTGCCTCATTTGAAATCACTGAATCTTTTTAAG 2442
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||
Db 2377 TTGCAGGAGATGCCAGTGCTGAGTAAACTGCCTCATTTGAAATCACTGTATCTTTTTATA 2436
Qy 2443 TTTTGTAAGTTAGAGTACATGGAGAGTAGAAGCAGCAGCAGTAGCAGTGACACAGAAGCA 2502
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2437 TTTTGTAAGTTAGAGTACATGGAGAGTAGAAGCAGCAGCAGTAGCAGTGACACAGAAGCA 2496
Qy 2503 GCAACACCAGAATTACCAACATTCTTCCCTTCCCTTAAAAAACTTACACTTGACGGTCTG 2562
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||
Db 2497 GCAACACCAGAATTACCAACATTCTTCCCTTCCCTTGAAAAACTTACACTTTGGTATCTG 2556
Qy 2563 AAAAAGTTGAAGGGTCTGGGGAACAGGAGATCGAGTAGTTTTCCCCGCCTCTCTAAATTG 2622
|||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2557 GAAAAGTTGAAGGGTTTGGGGAACAGGAGATCGAGTAGTTTTCCCCGCCTCTCTAAATTG 2616
Qy 2623 GTAATCTGGGAATGCCCAGATCTAACGTGGTTTCCTCCTTGTCCAAGCCTTGAAACGTTG 2682
| |||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2617 GAAATCCGGGAATGCCCAGATCTAACGTGGTTTCCTCCTTGTCCAAGCCTTGAAACGTTG 2676
Qy 2683 AAATTGGAAAAAAACAATGAAGCGTTGCAAATAATAGTAAAAATAACAACAACAAGAGGT 2742
||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2677 AAATTGGTAAAAAACAATGAAGCGTTGCAAATAATAGTAAAAATAACAACAACAAGAGGT 2736
Qy 2743 AAAGAAGAAAAAGAAGAAGACAAGAATGCTGGTGTTGGAAATTCACAAGATGATGACAAT 2802
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2737 AAAGAAGAAAAAGAAGAAGACAAGAATGCTGGTGTTGGAAATTCACAAGATGATGACAAT 2796
Qy 2803 GTCAAATTACGGAAGGTGAAACTAGACAATCTGGGTTATCTCAAATCACTGCCCACAAAT 2862
||||||||||||||||||| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2797 GTCAAATTACGGAAGGTGATAATAGACAATCTGGGTTATCTCAAATCACTGCCCACAAAT 2856
Qy 2863 TGTCTGACTCACCTCGACCTTATAATAAGTGATTCCAAGGAGGGGGAGGGTGAATGGGAA 2922
||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2857 TGTCTGACTCACCTCCACCTTACAATAAGAGATTCCAAGGAGGGGGAGGGTGAATGGGAA 2916
Qy 2923 GTTGGGGAGGCATTTCAGAAGTGTGTATCCTCTTTGAGTAAGCTCAGCGTAATCGGAAAT 2982
|||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| | |||| | |||||||||||
Db 2917 GTTGGGGATGCATTTCAGAAGTGTGTATCTTCTTTGACAAGCCTCACCATAATCGGAAAT 2976
Qy 2983 CACGGAATAAATAAAGTGATGAGACTGTCTGGAAGAACAGGGTTGGAGCATTTCACTCTG 3042
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 2977 CACGGAATAAATAAAGTGATGAGACTGTCTGGAAGAACAGGGTTGGAGCATTTCACTCTG 3036
Qy 3043 TTGGACTCACTCAAACTTTCAAATATAGAAGACCAGGAAGATGAGGGCGAAGACAACATC 3102
||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 3037 TTGGACTCACTCAAATTTTCAAAGATAGAAGACCAGGAAGATGAGGGCGAAGACAACATC 3096
Qy 3103 ATATTCTGGAAATCCTTTCCTCAAAACCTCCGCAGTTTGGAAATTGAAGACTCTGACAAA 3162
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| | ||||| |||||
Db 3097 ATATTCTGGAAATCCTTTCCTCAAAACCTCCGCAGTTTGGAAATTGTAAACTCTCACAAA 3156
Qy 3163 ATGACAAGTTTGCCCATGGGGATGCAGTACTTAACCTCCCTCCAAACCCTCGAACTATCA 3222
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 3157 ATGACAAGTTTGCCCATGGGGATGCAGTACTTAACCTCCCTCCAAACCCTCGAACTATCA 3216
Qy 3223 TATTGTGATGAATTGAATTCCCTTCCAGAATGGATAAGCAGCTTATCATCTCTTCAATCC 3282
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |
Db 3217 TATTGTGATGAATTGAATTCCCTTCCAGAATGGATAAGCAGCTTATCATCTCTTCAATAC 3276
Qy 3283 CTGTACATATACAAATGTCCAGCCCTAAAATCACTACCAGAAGCAATGCGGAACCTCACC 3342
||| ||||| ||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 3277 CTGGGCATATTCAACTGTCCAGCCCTAGAATCACTACCAGAAGCAATGCGGAACCTCACC 3336
Qy 3343 TCCCTTCAGAGCCTTGTGATACGGCGGTGTCCAGACCTAATTGAAAGATGCGAAGAA 3399
||||||||||| |||| |||||||| |||||||| ||| | | | |||| |
Db 3337 TCCCTTCAGAGACTTGAGATACGGCAGTGTCCAGCCCTGAAATCACTACCAGAAGCA 3393
Alignment of SEQ ID NO: 13 from den Boer et al with SEQ ID NO: 22 of the instant invention
Patent No. 11820993
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel B.V.
TITLE OF INVENTION: Peronospora resistance in spinacia oleracea alpha wolf-26 allele
FILE REFERENCE: L/P171534US00/JED
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/17/085,897
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2020-10-30
PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: US17/085,597
PRIOR FILING DATE: 2020-10-30
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 16
SEQ ID NO 13
LENGTH: 1174
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Spinacia oleracea
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Amino acid sequence of the alpha-WOLF 26 allele
Query Match 80.7%; Score 4844; Length 1174;
Best Local Similarity 80.7%;
Matches 954; Conservative 79; Mismatches 111; Indels 38; Gaps 7;
Qy 1 MAEIGYSVCSKLIEVMGSKIIKEICDMWGYKTHLEDLNKSVLTIKNVLMDAEVKRDLSRV 60
|||||||||:|||||:||::|||||| ||||: ||||||:|||::|||: | | |:|:
Db 1 MAEIGYSVCAKLIEVIGSELIKEICDTWGYKSLLEDLNKTVLTVRNVLIQAGVMRELTSE 60
Qy 61 QQGYIAELKDVVYDADDLFDEFLTLAELKQIDGNYKGGGKFSEKVRRFFSSNKEKMDQAY 120
|||:||:|||||||||||||: || || |||||| : ||||||||||: |: |||
Db 61 QQGFIADLKDVVYDADDLFDKLLTRAERKQIDGN-----EISEKVRRFFSSS-NKIGQAY 114
Qy 121 DMSRKVKKIKKQLDEIVDRHTKFGFIVDYKPIIRRR---EETCSYVDAKEIIGRDKDKDA 177
||||||:||||||||||||||||| :: |: | | || ||:| | |:||||||:
Db 115 YMSRKVKEIKKQLDEIVDRHTKFGFSAEFIPVCRERGNERETRSYIDVKNILGRDKDKND 174
Qy 178 IIDMLLDRNDKEGCSFLTIVGVGGLGKTALAQLVYNDEKVIKEFEGLRYWACVSDQDGEE 237
||| ||:||| | |||||||| ||||||||||||:|||:| || |||| ||||||| :
Db 175 IIDRLLNRNDNEACSFLTIVGAGGLGKTALAQLVFNDERVKIEFHDLRYWVCVSDQDGGQ 234
Qy 238 FDVKAILCKILESVTKVKPDGSSGLELVQNQFQERLRGKKYLLVLDDVWNEDREKWLSLK 297
|||| ||||||| ||| | | || |||||:||||:|||||| ||||||||||||||| |:
Db 235 FDVKEILCKILEVVTKEKVDNSSALELVQSQFQEKLRGKKYFLVLDDVWNEDREKWLRLE 294
Qy 298 KFLMLGQRGSRIMVTTRSKTTTTIIGDKHAYELQGLSQEDSWHLFEISAFD--NECIRNN 355
: ||||| ||:::|||||: | :|| :| | |: || : || |||:||| :| ::
Db 295 ELLMLGQGGSKVVVTTRSEKTANVIGKRHFYTLECLSPDYSWSLFEMSAFQKGHEQENHD 354
Qy 356 ELVEIGKKIVEKCYSIPLAIKVVGSLLFGQEKVKWQSFEASGLSQIGNGDNQIMSILKLS 415
|||:||||||||||: |||| ||||||:|:| ||:||| | |::||||||:|: |||||
Db 355 ELVDIGKKIVEKCYNNPLAITVVGSLLYGEEISKWRSFEMSELAKIGNGDNKILPILKLS 414
Qy 416 YHNLIPSLKSCFSYCAVFPKDHEIKKEMLIYLWIAQGYVVALDGGQSIEDAAEEHFVILL 475
|||||||||||||||||||||::||||||| ||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||
Db 415 YHNLIPSLKSCFSYCAVFPKDYKIKKEMLIDLWIAQGYVVPLDGGQSIEHAAEEHFVILL 474
Qy 476 RRCFFQDVKKDFLGDVDSVKIHDLMHDVAQEVGREEICIVNDNTKNLGDKIRHVHCDVNR 535
|||||||| || |||:|||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||
Db 475 RRCFFQDVVKDEYGDVNSVKIHDLMHDVAQEVGREEICIVNANTKNLGDKIRHVHCDVNR 534
Qy 536 YAQRVSLCSHKIRSYIGGKCEKRWVDTLIDKWMCLRVLDLSRSDVKNLPNSIGKLLHLRC 595
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||:||||| ||||||:|||||||||
Db 535 YAQRVSLCSHKIRSYIGGKCEKRWVDTLIDKWMCLRMLDLSRPDVKNLPDSIGKLLHLRY 594
Qy 596 LNLSYND-LLILPDAITRLHNLQTLLLKDCGSLMELPKDFCKLVKLRHLDLWGCDDLIGM 654
|||| || ||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| || ||||
Db 595 LNLSCNDYLLILPDAITRLHNLQTLLLKDCGSLKELPKDFCKLVKLRHLDLRGCQCLIGM 654
Qy 655 PLGMDMLTSLRVLPYFVVGRKKQSVDDELKALKGLTEIKGDIDIKICSNYRIVEGINDTG 714
||||| ||||||||:||||||:|||||||||||||||||| | |:| | ||||||:||||
Db 655 PLGMDRLTSLRVLPFFVVGRKEQSVDDELKALKGLTEIKGSIRIRIHSKYRIVEGMNDTG 714
Qy 715 GAGYLKSMKHLTGVNIIFDYKGVFVNPEAVLETLEPPSNIKSLSIDNYDGTTIPVWGRAE 774
|| |||||||||||:| | || ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 715 GAAYLKSMKHLTGVDITF--KGGCVNPEAVLETLEPPSNIKSLSIDNYDGTTIPVWGRAE 772
Qy 775 INWAISLSHLVDITLSCCEYLQEMPVLSKLPHLKSLNLFKFCKLEYMESRSSSSSSDTEA 834
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| || ||||||||||||||||||||
Db 773 INWAISLSHLVDITLSCCEYLQEMPVLSKLPHLKSLYLFIFCKLEYMESRSSSSSSDTEA 832
Qy 835 ATPELPTFFPSLKKLTLDGLKKLKGLGNRRSSSFPRLSKLVIWECPDLTWFPPCPSLETL 894
||||||||||||:|||| |:||||||||||||||||||| | |||||||||||||||||
Db 833 ATPELPTFFPSLEKLTLWYLEKLKGLGNRRSSSFPRLSKLEIRECPDLTWFPPCPSLETL 892
Qy 895 KLEKNNEALQIIVKITTTRGKEEKEEDKNAGVGNSQDDDNVKLRKVKLDNLGYLKSLPTN 954
|| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| :||||||||||||
Db 893 KLVKNNEALQIIVKITTTRGKEEKEEDKNAGVGNSQDDDNVKLRKVIIDNLGYLKSLPTN 952
Qy 955 CLTHLDLIISDSKEGEGEWEVGEAFQKCVSSLSKLSVIGNHGINKVMRLSGRTGLEHFTL 1014
||||| | | ||||||||||||:|||||||||: |::|||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 953 CLTHLHLTIRDSKEGEGEWEVGDAFQKCVSSLTSLTIIGNHGINKVMRLSGRTGLEHFTL 1012
Qy 1015 LDSLKLSNIEDQEDEGEDNIIFWKSFPQNLRSLEIEDSDKMTSLPMGMQYLTSLQTLELS 1074
||||| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| :| |||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1013 LDSLKFSKIEDQEDEGEDNIIFWKSFPQNLRSLEIVNSHKMTSLPMGMQYLTSLQTLELS 1072
Qy 1075 YCDELNSLPEWISSLSSLQSLYIY------------------------KCPALKSLPEAM 1110
||||||||||||||||||| | |: :|||||||||||
Db 1073 YCDELNSLPEWISSLSSLQYLGIFNCPALESLPEAMRNLTSLQRLEIRQCPALKSLPEAM 1132
Qy 1111 RNLTSLQSLVIRRCPDLIERCEEPNGEDYPKIRHISRIDIWR 1152
||||||| | ||:|||| ||| :|||||||||:|| :|::||
Db 1133 RNLTSLQRLEIRQCPDLAERCRKPNGEDYPKIQHIPKIELWR 1174
Prosecution Insights