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 1-2, 15-16, 23, 72, 79, 117, 128-129, and 132 are currently pending and under examination.
Claims 3-4, 17-71, 73-78, 80-116, 118-127, 130-131, and 133-165 are canceled.
Priority
The instant application is the National Stage entry of PCT/US2019/043539, International Filing Date: 07/25/2019, which claims priority to US Provisional Application 62,858,446, filed 06/07/2019, US Provisional Application 62,713,394, filed 08/01/2018, and US Provisional Application 62,703,060, filed 07/25/2018.
Claim 1, and those claims dependent therefrom, recite accessing or creating a soil-borne plant pathogen suppressive microbial library. This limitation is not supported by the ‘446, ‘394, and ‘060 applications. Therefore, claims 1-2, 9-18, 23, 26, 36, 39, 45-46, 50, 60, 67-68, 72, 79, 88, 94, 117, 128-129, 132, and 137-141 are not granted the claim to the benefit of priority to the ‘446, ‘394, and ‘060 applications.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 07/25/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action.
Withdrawn Rejections/Objections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby
withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 07/02/2026.
The 101 rejections to claims 1-2, 15-16, 23, 72, 79, 117, 128-129, and 132 are withdrawn in view of amendments received on 07/02/2026. Referring to 101 analysis as organized in MPEP 2106, the 101 rejections are withdrawn at least in view of the analysis Step 2A, 1st prong regarding claim interpretation leading to identification of judicial exceptions (JEs) (MPEP 2106.04), the claims being interpreted as not directed to any JEs. In this regard, Applicant's remarks at (pg. 6-8) support withdrawal of the rejection.
The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigley et al. (US20180044664A1), in view of Syed-Ab-Rahman et al. (Identification of Soil Bacterial Isolates Suppressing Different Phytophthora spp. and Promoting Plant Growth, Frontiers in Plant Science, Published: 18 October 2018, pages 1-18).
Regarding claim 1, Wigley discloses method for creating a soil-borne plant pathogen inhibiting microbial consortia having a designed level of antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness (Wigley: [0092] a combination of two or more microorganisms acquired, selected or isolated by a method [0342] to generate a refined set of 44 treatments comprising 34 individual isolates and 10 consortia for a second round of microbial evaluation).
Regarding the limitations of step a), Wigley [0023] discloses that the first aspect of the invention may also be useful in identifying and/or selecting one or more endophytic microorganism capable of imparting one or more beneficial property to a plant. Wigley further discloses [0317-0359] a process of directed evolution of a microbial community, where the environmental or other microbe-containing sample, related or unrelated to desired plant phenotypes are collected as the microbe source, plant is enriched, isolate microbes are selected, isolates are screened for specific attributes, and isolated microbes are tested alone or in combination for ability to induce or confer desired trait. Wigley further discloses [0134] that microorganism or combination of microorganisms (the first set of one or more microorganisms) is selected from a pre-existing collection of individual microbial species or strains that provides no knowledge of their likely or predicted benefit to a plant. Wigley further discloses [0138] that it is preferred that a mixed population of microorganisms is used in the methods of the invention; reading on limitations of a) accessing or creating a soil-borne plant pathogen suppressive microbial library, wherein the creating comprises screening a population of microbial isolates in the presence of a soil- borne plant pathogen to create a soil-borne plant pathogen suppressive profile for the microbial isolates, wherein said plant pathogen suppressive profile indicates each microbial isolate's ability to suppress the soil-borne plant pathogen.
Regarding the limitations of step b) Wigley discloses ([0068]-[0088] ; claims 22-25) a method for the selection of a composition (for example, a soil-borne plant pathogen suppressive profile) which is capable of imparting one or more beneficial property to a plant, the method comprising at least the steps of: culturing one or more microorganisms (for example, co-culturing microbial isolates) selected by a method of the first aspect of the invention in one or more media to provide one or more culture; (where the first aspect of the invention may also be useful in identifying and/or selecting one or more endophytic microorganism capable of imparting one or more beneficial property to a plant [0023] (for example, step a) creating a collection of cultured microbial isolates) and the microorganism or combination of microorganisms (the first set of one or more microorganisms) is selected from a pre-existing collection of individual microbial species or strains that provides no knowledge of their likely or predicted benefit to a plant [0134]; b) separating the one or more microorganism from the one or more media in the one or more culture after a period of time to provide one or more composition substantially free of microorganisms reading on limitations of b) creating antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness profile for each of the microbial isolates in step a), wherein the creating comprises the steps of: i) co-culturing a population of microbial isolates from step a) and quantitatively measuring the ability of each microbial isolate to signal and modulate the production of antimicrobial compounds in other microbial isolates; thereby creating an antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness profile for each of the microbial isolates in step a).
Regarding the limitations of step c) Wigley discloses [0137]- [0138] that the source material may include one or more species of microorganisms. It is preferred that a mixed population of microorganisms is used in the methods of the invention; ([0091-0094] a combination of two or more microorganisms acquired, selected or isolated by a method of library creation/preparation steps in [0068-0090] for imparting one or more beneficial property to one or more plant). ([0092] a combination of two or more microorganisms acquired, selected or isolated by a method [0342] to generate a refined set of 44 treatments comprising 34 individual isolates and 10 consortia for a second round of microbial evaluation); reading on limitations of c) selecting and combining at least two microbial isolates having complementary plant pathogen inhibiting activity.
Regarding the limitations of step d) Wigley discloses ([0068]-[0088]; claims 22-25) subjecting one or more plant (including for example seeds, seedlings, cuttings, and/or propagules thereof) to the one or more composition of step b) (for example, empirically verifying microbial isolated activity) and selecting one or more composition from step c) if it is observed to impart one or more beneficial property to the one or more plants (for example, producing plant pathogen inhibiting microbial consortia); reading on limitations of d) empirically verifying the complementary plant pathogen inhibiting activity of the at least two microbial isolates selected, thereby producing a soil-borne plant pathogen inhibiting microbial consortia having a designed level of antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness.
Further regarding claim 1 step a), Wigley discloses [0133] that the predicted responses of microorganisms (for example, no pre-existing knowledge of their ability to improve plant growth or health) include eliciting plant defensive responses such as ISR (induced systemic resistance) or SAR (systemic acquired resistance), for example screening by applying beneficial microorganisms, which help the plant resist the invasion and spread of pathogenic microorganisms; competing with microorganisms deleterious to plant growth or health by antagonism (beneficial microorganisms that suppress or inhibit disease-causing organisms in plants). Emphasis added.
Wigley does not teach that the plant beneficial profile with no knowledge of their likely or predicted benefit to a plant is a pathogen suppressive profile. This limitation is taught by Syed-Ab-Rahman.
Syed-Ab-Rahman discloses a method of identification of soil bacterial isolates to suppress plant pathogens. Syed-Ab-Rahman further discloses a primary screening, where a subset of 48 isolates was randomly chosen from the Plant–Microbe Interactions Laboratory microbial collection… The bacterial isolates were then tested for their ability to produce anti-oomycete metabolites against Phytophthora spp. The screenings included the species P. capsici, P. citricola, P. palmivora, and P. cinnamomi. This test consisted of a dual-culture in vitro assay on potato dextrose agar (PDA, Oxoid) (pg. 2. Col. 2; subsection: Screening of bacterial isolates for antagonistic activity); reading on limitations of step a).
Syed-Ab-Rahman discloses a secondary screening, where In vivo experiments were conducted to assess the efficacy of the bacterial isolates in suppressing pathogen load of the causal agent of Phytophthora blight in chili pepper (C. annuum L., cultivar Cayenne) (pg. 5, col. 2, para. 1); reading on limitations of step b).
Syed-Ab-Rahman discloses Extraction and identification of potential anti-oomycete compounds, as well as screening and identification of bacterial isolates for antagonistic activity. Syed-Ab-Rahman further discloses One of the objectives of this study was to screen for potential isolates that exhibit plant growth promoting and biocontrol properties, using various existing biochemical microbiological in vitro assays. Bacteria isolated from Arabidopsis rhizosphere and bulk soil were investigated for plant growth promotion and antagonistic activities against pathogenic Phytophthora spp. isolates. Overall, the isolates showed varied levels of inhibition against Phytophthora. Almost all 48 tested isolates showed inhibitory effects against Phytophthora (Figure 1) (pg. 6, col. 2, last para.).
Syed-Ab-Rahman further determines biocontrol and plant growth promotion, where the isolates exhibited potent inhibitory effects toward P. capsici, P. citricola, P. cinnamomi, and P. palmivora in vitro… Microscopic observation of Phytophthora hyphae showed an abnormal morphology, i.e., excessive branching and irregular shape along with the inhibition zone in dual-culture plate assays. traits (for example, empirically verifying pathogen inhibiting activity); reading on limitations of steps c) and d).
Regarding claim 2, Wigley discloses assembling a library of microbial consortia, each microbial consortia comprising at least two microbes from the soil-borne plant pathogen suppressive microbial library, selected based on the analysis (([0091-0094] a combination of two or more microorganisms acquired, selected or isolated by a method of library creation/preparation steps in [0068-0090] for imparting one or more beneficial property to one or more plant));
Wigley further discloses screening microbial consortia from the library of microbial consortia in the presence of a plurality of soil-borne plant pathogens to produce a soil-borne plant pathogen suppressive profile for each screened microbial consortia ([0133] in one embodiment a microorganism or a combination of microorganisms of use in the methods of the invention may be selected from a pre-existing collection of individual microbial species or strains based on some knowledge of their likely or predicted benefit to a plant. For example, the microorganism may be predicted to … elicit plant defensive responses such as ISR (induced systemic resistance) or SAR (systemic acquired resistance) which help the plant resist the invasion and spread of pathogenic microorganisms);
Wigley further discloses optionally ranking microbial consortia from the library of screened microbial consortia based upon at least one dimension of the soil-borne plant pathogen suppressive profile of each microbial consortia ([0338] example 5, microbial evaluation: microbial evaluation was performed on isolates on the basis of abundance, diversity and species characteristics, [0342] treatments were selected on the basis of result of an analysis (WSC) and included individual isolates that performed well in consortia, as well as new consortia prepared from highly ranked microbes);
Wigley further discloses and selecting a soil-borne plant pathogen inhibiting microbial consortia having the desired soil-borne pathogen suppressive profile from the library ([0345] The treatment yielding the highest median carbohydrate concentration was a new consortium of the three top-ranking individual isolates from the first round of microbial evaluation).
Regarding Claim 117, Wigley discloses a method for prescriptive biocontrol of a soil-borne plant pathogen (In another embodiment, the methods of the first aspect of the invention may be useful in identifying and/or selecting one or more unculturable microorganism capable of imparting one or more beneficial property to a plant [0025]; By way of further example, the microorganisms may be collected from commercial crops grown in such environments, or more specifically from individual crop plants best displaying a trait of interest amongst a crop grown in any specific environment [0131]; Furthermore, the evaluation may be performed by the requesting party and/or in the first region (0039]; "Region" and "first region" are to be interpreted broadly as meaning one or more areas of land. The land areas may be defined by geographical/political/private land boundaries or by land areas having similar properties such as climate, soil properties, presence of a particular pest etc., Para. [0028]), said method comprising: a) Identifying the soil-borne plant pathogen(s) present in soil or plant tissue from a locus in need of prescriptive biocontrol ("Region" and "first region" are to be interpreted broadly as meaning one or more areas of land. The land areas may be defined by geographical/political/private land
boundaries or by land areas having similar properties such as ... soil properties, presence of a particular pest etc. (0028]; Methods for isolation may be informed by culture independent community profiling techniques that provide information on the identity and activity of microbes present in a given sample [0213]); b) creating a customized soil-borne plant pathogen inhibiting microbial consortia.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wigley to have used the known pathogen suppressive properties of Syed-Ab-Rahman, as one of the beneficial properties in the composition selection method of Wigley. One ordinary skilled in the art could have used the known pathogen suppressive properties of Syed-Ab-Rahman in the composition selection method of Wigley and the results would have been predictable and would result in an improved biocontrol system for the purpose of increasing agricultural yields. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining these techniques because both are in the same field of screening, identification and/or application of beneficial microorganisms.
Claim(s) 72 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigley et al. (US20180044664A1), in view of Syed-Ab-Rahman et al. (Identification of Soil Bacterial Isolates Suppressing Different Phytophthora spp. and Promoting Plant Growth, Frontiers in Plant Science, Published: 18 October 2018, pages 1-18), as applied to claims 1, 2, and 117 above, and further in view of Mccormick et al. (US 2998352 A).
The limitations of claim 1 has been taught in the above rejection.
Regarding claim 72, Wigley discloses b) assembling a library of microbial consortia, each consortia comprising a plurality of microbial isolates from those screened in step a) (prior to the method or at any stage of the method) to a selective pressure to enhance the probability that the eventually-selected plants will have microbial assemblages likely to have desired properties [0144]); c) optionally screening microbial consortia from the library of microbial consortia in the presence of a soil-borne pathogen targeted by the antimicrobial compound(s) produced as a consequence of the antimicrobial signaling capacity or responsiveness of at least one microbial isolate in the microbial consortia from step (a); and d) selecting a soil-borne plant pathogen inhibiting microbial consortia (The medium may be amended or enriched with additional compounds or components, for example, a component which may assist in the interaction and/or selection of specific groups of microorganisms with the plant and each other [0193]; It is expected that these combinations will detect previously unknown, desirable property promoting (such as plant growth), synergistic interactions between microbes. Using the iterative steps a) to c) will drive the starting population of two or more microorganisms toward microbes that interact with the plant to impart a desired property or characteristic, Para. (0121]).
Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman do not disclose having an optimal and designed level of antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness; said microbial profile comprises antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness profile for each individual microbial isolate of a microbial population, comprising: i) screening the population of microbial isolates for the ability of each microbial isolate to signal and modulate the production of antimicrobial compounds in other microbial isolates from the population of microbial isolates; and/or ii) screening a population of microbial isolates for the ability of each microbial
isolate to be signaled and have their production of antimicrobial compounds modulated by other microbial isolates from the population of microbial isolates; wherein at least one microbial isolate in the microbial consortia exhibits the ability to signal and modulate the production of antimicrobial compounds in another microbial isolate in the consortia; and having an optimal and designed level of antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness from the library.
Regarding Claim 79, Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman do not disclose that the antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness profile comprises at least one dimension selected from the group consisting of: i) binary ability to signal and modulate the production of antimicrobial compounds in other microbial isolates, and ii) strength of ability to signal and modulate the production of antimicrobial compounds in other microbial isolates. iii) binary ability to be signaled and have their production of antimicrobial compounds modulated by other microbial isolates, and iiiv) strength of ability to be signaled and have their production of antimicrobial compounds modulated by other microbial isolates.
Further regarding claims 72 and 79, Mccormick discloses screening combinations of microbes to identify and select microbial compositions having an optimized output of antibiotic compositions (In accordance with the present invention it has been discovered that it is possible to produce commercially significant quantities of the tetracycline antibiotics by means of a synergistic fermentation with two or more microorganisms of the genus Streptomyces. It is a surprising feature of the present invention to discover that it is possible to use a mixture of two or more selected strains of microorganisms of the genus Streptomyces and obtain in many instances a tremendous enhancement or synergistic effect in the production of the tetracyclines even when such strains fermented singly produce none or relatively small amounts of the tetracycline antibiotics. This phenomenon is referred to herein as cosynthesis. It is also surprising to discover that both members of the cosynthesizing pair of microorganisms need not be of the same species and indeed only one member of the pair need be derived from a normally-tetracyclines-producing species of the genus Streptomyces. Thus, some strains of S. aureofaciens will demonstrate cosynthetic production of the tetracyclines with strains of the species S. albo-niger, S. albus, S. griseus, etc .... The selection of strains for the purpose of accomplishing the cosynthesis of the tetracyclines is easily carried out by the classical means of strain selection as practiced in the art, Col. 1, Lns. 34-62; It is preferable, therefore, to have a member of a cosynthetic pair which is known to function as such so as to serve as a test organism in searching for new cosynthesizing variants. By this means, the number of combinations to be tested is reduced from a very large number for each variant to only one test for each variant; the test consisting of carrying out a mixed fermentation with each new variant plus the one known cosynthesizing variant. In this situation, the discovery of a new cosynthesizing variant is marked by a significant increase in the production of tetracyclines in the mixed fermentation as compared to the single fermentations using the components being tested, Col. 2, Lns. 42-54; Strains of Streptomyces obtained from culture collections or isolated from the soil, Col. 7, Lns. 4-6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman to have created the antimicrobial signaling capacity and responsiveness microbial library, as shown by Mccormick (cols. 1-2, and 7) for the purpose of systematically screening and identifying combinations of microbes that can synergistically enhance antimicrobial production to enhance efficacy of antimicrobial compositions for inhibiting pathogenic organisms in the soil surrounding plants. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Mccormick to the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman because they all controlling microorganism strains.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigley et al. (US20180044664A1), in view of Syed-Ab-Rahman et al. (Identification of Soil Bacterial Isolates Suppressing Different Phytophthora spp. and Promoting Plant Growth, Frontiers in Plant Science, Published: 18 October 2018, pages 1-18), as applied to claims 1, 2, and 117 above, and further in view of Beau et al. (US10159257B2).
The limitations of claim 1 has been taught in the above rejection.
Regarding claim 15, Wigley discloses a microorganism or a combination of microorganisms of use in the methods of the invention may be selected from a pre-existing collection of individual microbial species or strains based on some knowledge of their likely or predicted benefit to a plant. Wigley further discloses nitrogen fixing bacteria Rhizobium species. Wigley further discloses that microorganisms used in the method includes but is not limited to the two prokaryotic domains, Bacteria and Archaea, as well as eukaryotic fungi and protists. By way of example, the microorganisms may include Proteobacteria (such as Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Burkholderia, Rhizobium, Herbaspirillum, Pantoea, Serratia, Rahnella, Azospirillum, Azorhizobium, Azotobacter, Duganella, Delftia, Bradyrhizobiun, Sinorhizobium and Halomonas), Firmicutes (such as Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Lactobacillus, Mycoplasma, and Acetobacterium), Actinobacteria (such as Streptomyces, Rhodococcus, Microbacterium, and Curtobacterium), and the fungi Ascomycota (such as Trichoderma, Ampelomyces, Coniothyrium, Paecoelomyces, Penicillium, Cladosporium, Hypocrea, Beauveria, Metarhizium, Verticullium, Cordyceps, Pichea, and Candida, Basidiomycota (such as Coprinus, Corticium, and Agaricus) and Oomycota (such as Pythium, Mucor, and Mortierella).
Further regarding claim 15, Syed-Abu-Rhaman discloses screening for anti-oomycete activity against Phytophthora capsici, Phytophthora citricola, Phytophthora palmivora, and Phytophthora cinnamomi (abstract).
Wigley and Syed-Abu-Rhaman do not expressly disclose that plant pathogens include fungi and fungi-like organisms, include Plasmodiophoromyces, Zygomycetes and Basidiomvcetes.
Beau discloses methods to isolated compounds and methods of treating a plant to control a plant disease with the disclosed compositions and compounds (abstract). Beau further discloses soilborne pathogens, which are in particular members of the classes Plasmodiophoromycetes, Peronosporomycetes (Syn. Oomycetes), Chytridiomycetes, Zygomycetes, Ascomycetes, Basidiomycetes and Deuteromycetes (Syn. Fungi imperfecti), (col. 29, para.1). Beau further discloses that bactericides can be used in crop protection for control of Pseudomonadaceae, Rhizobiaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Corynebacteriaceae and Streptomycetaceae (col. 29, para.2). Beau further discloses that diseases caused by pathogens from the group of the Oomycetes, for example Albugo species, for example Algubo candida; Bremia species, for example Bremia lactucae; Peronospora species, for example Peronospora pisi or P. brassicae; Phytophthora species, for example Phytophthora infestans; Plasmopara species, for example Plasmopara viticola; Pseudoperonospora species, for example Pseudoperonospora humuli or Pseudoperonospora cubensis; Pythium species, for example Pythium ultimum (col. 29, para.4). Beau further discloses that seed and soilborne decay, mould, wilt, rot and damping-off diseases caused, for example, by Alternaria species, caused for example by Alternaria brassicicola; Aphanomyces species, caused for example by Aphanomyces euteiches; Phytophthora species, caused for example by Phytophthora cactorum; Macrophomina species, caused for example by Macrophomina phaseolina; Sclerotium species, caused for example by Sclerotium rolfsii (col. 30, para.5). Beau further discloses that fruit rot caused, for example, by Aspergillus species, for example Aspergillus flavus; Botrytis species, for example Botrytis cinerea; Penicillium species, for example Penicillium expansum and P. purpurogenum; Sclerotinia species, for example Sclerotinia sclerotiorum; Verticilium species, for example Verticilium alboatrum (col. 30, para.4). Beau further discloses root and stem diseases caused, for example, by Rhizoctonia species, such as, for example Rhizoctonia solani; Beau further discloses that club root caused, for example, by Plasmodiophora species, for example Plamodiophora brassicae (col. 30, para.1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman to have used plant pathogens include fungi and fungi-like organisms, as shown by Beau (cols. 29-30) for the purpose of selecting microbial isolates that can inhibit the growth of a known plant pathogens. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Beau to the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman because they all controlling pathogens in crops.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigley et al. (US20180044664A1), in view of Syed-Ab-Rahman et al. (Identification of Soil Bacterial Isolates Suppressing Different Phytophthora spp. and Promoting Plant Growth, Frontiers in Plant Science, Published: 18 October 2018, pages 1-18), as applied to claims 1, 2, and 117 above, and further in view of Thakur et al. (Biocontrol of Soilborne Root Pathogens: An Overview. In: Giri, B., Prasad, R., Varma, A. (eds) Root Biology. Soil Biology, vol 52. Springer, Cham. pp 181–220; 02 May 2018).
The limitations of claim 1 has been taught in the above rejection.
Regarding claim 16, Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman do not disclose that the soil-borne pathogen is selected from the group consisting of: species of Erwinia, Rhizomonas, Streptomyces scabies, Pseudomonas, and Xanthomona. Thakur discloses that few species of bacteria such as species belonging to genera Erwinia, Rhizomonas, and Streptomyces are known to cause root infections. Thakur further discloses that Streptomyces scabies, is one of the common examples of root disease-causing agents (section: 7.8.2 Bacterial Pathogens). Thakur further discloses several species of Pseudomonas for biological control of plant root diseases (section: 7.9.1 Antibiosis). Thakur further discloses a diverse array of microorganisms belonging to genera such Erwinia, Pseudomonas, and Xanthomona for biological control of plant root diseases (section: 7.10.1 Bacteria).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman to have used the soil-borne pathogens, as shown by Thakur (sections: 7.8.2, 7.9.1, and 7.10.1) for the purpose of selecting soil-borne pathogens that can inhibit the growth of a known plant pathogens. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Thakur to the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman because they all controlling pathogens in crops.
Claim(s) 128-129 and 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigley et al. (US20180044664A1), in view of Syed-Ab-Rahman et al. (Identification of Soil Bacterial Isolates Suppressing Different Phytophthora spp. and Promoting Plant Growth, Frontiers in Plant Science, Published: 18 October 2018, pages 1-18), as applied to claims 1, 2, and 117 above, and further in view of Hafeel et al. (US 20090229179 A1).
The limitations of claims 1 and 117 have been taught in the above rejection.
Regarding Claim 128, Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman do not disclose creating a soil nutrient profile. However, Hafeel discloses a method for prescriptive biocontrol of a soil-borne plant pathogen, said method comprising: creating a soil nutrient profile from soil from a locus in need of prescriptive biocontrol; creating a customized carbon amendment for application on the locus, wherein the customized carbon amendment supplements a carbon deficiency in the nutrient soil profile (The invention relates to a method of land management involving the assessment of soil quality as a control parameter in practice of such method [0001]; With this object in view, the present invention provides-in one aspect-a method for land management comprising measuring, as a measure of effectiveness of the method, soil quality of a soil sample collected from land under management by a microbial bioassay [0007]; Conversely, if a bacterial deficiency is identified a strategy to augment soil biological activity may be implemented. Microbial inocula and bacteria rich fertilizers such as compost tea or fish emulsion, may be applied to increase microbial activity [0024]; Manuring and compost application promote soil microbial activity directly, primarily by supplying a metabolisable carbon source together with nutrients, Para. [0004]; The efficacy of trichoderma as a biocontrol of plant pathogens may be enhanced if used in combination with compost tea [0062]).
Regarding Claim 129, Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman do not disclose applying the customized soil carbon amendment to the locus. However, Hafeel discloses the step of applying the customized soil carbon amendment to the locus (In such embodiment, the present invention provides a biological method of managing crop production comprising the following steps: ... c) determining objective standards for soil and crops in said area and a biological nutrient application program for the area aimed at achieving those of the objective standards which are specific to the specified crop, the program consisting of application of biologically acceptable components not known to cause genetic modification of plants; d) conducting the biological nutrient application program, Paras. [0015]-[00191).
Regarding Claim 132, Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman do not disclose creating a soil nutrient profile by providing a soil sample and analyzing the carbon nutrient. However, Hafeel discloses the method of claim 128, wherein the step of creating a soil nutrient profile comprises the steps of: i) providing a soil sample from the locus in need of prescriptive biocontrol; and ii) analyzing the carbon nutrient contents of said soil sample (With this object in view, the present invention provides-in one aspect-a method for land management comprising measuring, as a measure of effectiveness of the method, soil quality of a soil sample collected from land under management by a microbial bioassay ... Such measurement may be employed to identify the availability of nutrients, Para. [0007)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman to have created a soil nutrient profile, as shown by Hafeel ([0001], [0007], and [0062]) for the purpose assessing soil quality by a microbial bioassay to increase productivity of crops. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the technique of Hafeel to the method of Wigley and Syed-Ab-Rahman because they all controlling pathogens in crops.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2025 have been considered but they are not yet persuasive. Applicant states (page 8-12 of Remarks):
As stated in Wigley in paragraph [0133], the teachings of Wigley obviate the need for pre- existing knowledge about a microorganism's desirable properties. While Wigley goes on to state that microorganisms for use in the claimed methods may be chosen from a pre-existing collection based on some knowledge or prediction of their plant benefit (or not - as stated in paragraph [0134]), this does not rise to the methodology claimed in the instant case. Moreover, those microorganisms chosen from a pre-existing collection are still then used in the method of Wigley, which relies on repeated cycles of plant growth and microbial selection based on plant phenotype, i.e. the plant in Wigley is doing the selecting.
substituting the plant directed method of Wigley with the microbial isolate method of Syed-Ab-Rahman would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in Wigley as well as a change in the basic principles under which Wigley's construction was designed to operate.
It is respectfully submitted that above statements are not yet persuasive. Wigley, in one or more embodiments, teaches a method for the selection of a composition that includes co-culturing microorganisms for measuring their beneficial property to a plant, see Wigley [0068-0088] and claims 22-25. Wigley does not use the said method in the one or more microorganisms’ selection method that are based on cycles of plant growth. Additionally, in another embodiment, Wigley teaches [0134] [0258] that a microorganism or combination of microorganisms (the first set of one or more microorganisms) is selected from a pre-existing collection of individual microbial species or strains that provides no knowledge of their likely or predicted benefit to a plant and these microorganisms are cultured according to techniques known in the art.
Therefore, the method of Wigley does not require reconstruction. And, the known technique of using pathogen suppressive properties, as taught by Syed-Ab-Rahman, is applicable in the base composition selection method of Wigley, as one or more beneficial properties to a plant.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL SABOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights