DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Request for Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/26 was filed and entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Status
4. The amendment, filed 01/21/26, has been entered. Claims 207-240 and 242-243 are pending and under examination. Claims 1-206 are cancelled. Claims 207-208 are amended.
Withdrawal of Objections/Rejections
5. The following are withdrawn from the Office Action, filed 09/11/25:
The rejection of claims 207, 215, 217, 219-227, and 229-230 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ali et al. 2008 (US 7,332,650), found on page 3 at paragraph 7, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
The rejection of claims 207-216, 219-221, 228, 231, and 242-243 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al. 2013 (J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci 138(2):142-148) in view of Zhang et al. 2014 (PloS ONE 9(11): e111032), found on page 9 at paragraph 12, is withdrawn in favor of the rejections set forth below.
The rejection of claims 217-218, 222-227, and 229-230 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al. 2013 (J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci 138(2):142-148) and Zhang et al. 2014 (PloS ONE 9(11): e111032), as applied to claims 207-216, 219-221, 228, 231, 234, and 242-243, and further in view of Ali et al. 2008 (US 7,332,650), found on page 14 at paragraph 14, is withdrawn in favor of the rejections set forth below.
New Claim Objections
6. Claim 242 is objected to because of the following informalities: duplicate entries within the list. For example, claim 242 lists “Citrus sinensis” at least twice (e.g. lines 1-2 and line 7). Appropriate correction for all entries throughout the entire list is required.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claims 207-216, 219-220, 226-227, and 242-243 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. 2016 (Evaluation of the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Oxytetracyline and its control effect against Citrus Huanglongbing via Trunk Injection; Disease Control and Pest Management; 106(12): 1495-1503) in view of Zeitler et al. 2013 (De-Novo Design of Antimicrobial Peptides for Plant Protection; PLOS One 8(8): e71687; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071687).
Hu teaches methods for controlling Huanglongbing (HLB) bacterial infections, caused by Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, in citrus plants, including Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis), comprising administration of a bactericidal compound to the plant via direct trunk injection into the phloem and/or the xylem (e.g. see abstract; introduction; page 1496, Methods; and Figure 1; meeting limitations found in instant claims 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, and 242-243).
Therefore, the difference between the prior art and the invention is the administration of an antibacterial peptide (instant) instead of an antibacterial chemical compound (i.e. an antibiotic drug; prior art).
However, Zeitler teaches that the use of chemicals to protect plants against bacterial pathogens is undesirable because of strong restrictions and regulatory requirements whereas the use of antimicrobial peptides is desirable based on their mode of action which reduces the risk of resistance development, as has happened with the use of antibiotics (e.g. see page 1, introduction; Table 1; and Figure 1). Zeitler teaches antimicrobial peptides include thionins and defensins and those rich in cysteine (see pages 1-2, bridging section; meeting limitations found in dependent claims 219, 220 and 226-227). Zeitler teaches the peptides are found in plants (e.g. page 1, introduction; meeting limitations found in instant claims 215 and 216).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute an antibacterial peptide for the antibacterial drug (i.e. oxytetracycline), thereby arriving at the claimed invention, to avoid the risk of resistance development which was art-recognized as problematic, as taught by Zeitler. Therefore, each and every element is taught in the prior art and the combination has a beneficial result; however, the combination amounts to no more than a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because the use of chemicals was not desirable based on known strong restrictions and regulatory requirements whereas the use of antimicrobial peptides was recognized as desirable based on their mode of action, as taught by Zeitler. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hu had already demonstrated the advantages of using direct trunk injections to protect plants from bacterial pathogens and Zeitler had already demonstrated that antimicrobial peptides could also protect plants from bacterial pathogens but without the disadvantages associated with the use of antibiotic chemicals (e.g. antibiotic resistance). Therefore, the combination leads to expected results because each element performs the same function as it does individually.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) also discloses that "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results". In the instant case, the Hu teaches a method that only differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a single component (i.e. substitution of the antibacterial used); the substituted element (i.e. an antibacterial peptide) was already known and was already shown to function in the protection of plants against bacterial pathogens, therefore no change in the function of the substituted element occurred; and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of substituting one antibacterial for another with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. the substitution of the element would lead to predictable results).
Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. Claims 207-216, 219-221, 228, 231, 234, and 242-243 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al. 2013 (J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci 138(2):142-148) in view of Hu et al. 2016 (Evaluation of the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Oxytetracyline and its control effect against Citrus Huanglongbing via Trunk Injection; Disease Control and Pest Management; 106(12): 1495-1503).
Stover teaches the use of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) to confer resistance to citrus plants, including for example, Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis), against bacterial pathogens, including to the recognized causal agents of Huanglongbing (HLB), including Xanthomonas citri (e.g. see title, abstract, and introduction, page 142; and Table 1; meeting limitations found in claims 207, 210, 211, 212, 242 and 243). Stover teaches several AMPs derived from plants and at least one that is cysteine rich (e.g. see Table 1; meeting limitations found in instant claims 215, 216, 219, 220, and 221). Stover teaches the use of defensin peptides as AMPs against HLB (e.g. see page 143, left column; and page 146, right column; meeting limitations found in instant claim 228). Stover teaches chimeric AMPs combined with other sequences having high affinity to target areas (i.e. fusions) have markedly greater effectiveness (e.g. see page 147, left column, meeting limitations found in instant claim 231 and 234). Stover teaches the casual pathogen for HLB is located exclusively in phloem sieve elements (e.g. see page 147, left column). Stover teaches bacterial diseases including HLB are a serious threat to sustainability of the Florida citrus industry (e.g. page 142, introduction).
Therefore, the difference between the prior art and the invention is that Stover did not inject the AMPs directly into plants.
However, Hu teaches advantages of trunk injection include a target-precise and environmental friendly method for delivery directly into plants including for treating pests; and that due to xylem's quick and high capacity of translocation, trunk injection of therapeutic compounds is a better alternative approach to control bacteria and fungi on numerous trees species because in contrast, the other strategies for administration including (1) foliar spray creates excessive drift, has limited reach, and leads to exposure to off-target organisms and (2) soil drench is limited by slower action, microbial degradation, requirement of higher amount of product and repeated application, and negative impacts on off-target organisms (see page 1496, left column).
Hu also teaches methods for controlling Huanglongbing (HLB) bacterial infections, caused by Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, in citrus plants, including Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis), comprising administration of a bactericidal compound to the plant via direct trunk injection into the phloem and/or the xylem (e.g. see abstract; introduction; page 1496, Methods; and Figure 1; also meeting limitations found in instant claims 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, and 242-243).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to administer the antimicrobial peptides to citrus plants, as taught by Stover, via direct injection into the trunk and/or phloem, as taught by Hu, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, in order to target any one of the etiological agents of HLB, all of which were recognized as restricted to those particular tissues, as taught by Stover. It would also be prima facie obvious to combine the AMPs with phloem targeting sequences in order to enhance the AMPs’ effectiveness, as taught by Stover. Therefore, each element is taught in the prior art and the combination has a beneficial result; however, the combination amounts to no more than a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because bacterial diseases, including HLB, were a serious threat to sustainability of the Florida citrus industry, as taught by Stover; and trunk injection was a target-precise and environmental friendly method for delivery of therapeutic compounds directly into plants including for treating HLB, as taught by Hu. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Stover had already demonstrated the use of AMPs against the bacterial agents that caused HLB; and Hu had already demonstrated successful delivery of antibacterial compounds via trunk injection, for protecting plants against the same disease (i.e. HLB). Therefore, the combination leads to expected results because each element performs the same function as it does individually.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that applying a known technique to a known device, method or product ready for improvement is obvious because a particular known technique is recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. In the instant case, Stover contains a “base” method of protecting citrus plants from bacterial and fungal infections; and Hu contains a similar method for protecting citrus plants from the same types of infections, wherein the technique of direct injection into the trunk, is taught as advantageous. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Hu (i.e. direct injection into the trunk of a plant) would have yielded predictable results (i.e. the same advantages) and an improved system.
Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. Claim(s) 217-218, 222-227, and 229-230 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stover et al. 2013 (J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci 138(2):142-148) and Hu et al. 2016 (Disease Control and Pest Management; 106(12): 1495-1503), as applied to claims 207-216, 219-221, 228, 231, 234, and 242-243 above, and further in view of Ali et al. 2008 (US 7,332,650).
The combined teachings of Stover and Hu are outlined above.
Therefore, the key difference(s) between the prior art and the invention is wherein the antimicrobial peptide comprises SEQ ID NO: 651.
However, Ali teaches similar methods for protecting citrus plants against similar fungal and bacterial (e.g. Xanthomonas) pathogens comprising injecting antimicrobial peptides, including a 100% match to elected SEQ ID NO: 651; (e.g. see alignment in previous Office Action; and column 2, lines 45-51; column 23, lines 29-34; column 25, line 52; and column 30, lines 22-52; thereby meeting limitations found in instant claims 207, 226-227, 229-230, and 241) including multiple cysteines thereby also meeting limitations found in instant claims 219, 220 and 221; and derived from the citrus plant: Citrus x paradisi (e.g. column 4, lines 64-67; meeting limitations found in claims 215, 216, 217, and 218); and expressible by bacteria; see column 23, lines 29-40; and column 26, lines 55-60; meeting limitations found in claims 222, 223, 224, and 225). Ali teaches the use of chemicals to control plant pathogens is costly and causes harmful effects and thus has been banned in many areas, thereby generating the need for alternatives that possess a lower risk of pollution and environmental hazards (column 1, lines 45-67).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the methods for treating bacterial and/or fungal infections in citrus plants comprising administering (i.e. injecting) AMPs directly to a citrus plant trunk and/or phloem, as taught by Stover and Hu in general, by using the antimicrobial peptide taught by Ali, in particular, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, in order to provide citrus plants with an effective treatment alternative which would have a lower risk of pollution and environmental hazards, as taught by both Ali and Hu. Therefore, each and every element is taught in the prior art and the combination has a beneficial result; however, the combination amounts to no more than a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because bacterial diseases were recognized as a serious threat to sustainability of the citrus industry, as taught by Stover and the AMPs taught by Ali were recognized as alternatives with lower risk of pollution and other environmental hazards. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Stover and Hu had already taught the advantages of trunk injection of AMPs against HLB in citrus plants, in general; and Ali had already taught the use of SEQ ID NO: 651 for treating bacterial and fungal infections in citrus trees, in particular. Therefore, the combination leads to expected results because each element performs the same function as it does individually.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) also discloses that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. In the instant case, all elements were known in the art and thus, combining these elements yields a method wherein each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Accordingly, the results of the combination would be recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these prior art elements according to a known method to yield predictable results.
Thus, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 232-233 and 235-240 appear to be free of the art and thus are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. No claims are allowed.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY MAILLE LYONS whose telephone number is (571)272-2966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am to 5 pm 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, Dan Kolker can be reached on (571)-272-3181. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARY MAILLE LYONS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
February 23, 2026