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 .
Application Transfer
The application has been transferred to Patent Examiner Yvette Tamukong in Art Unit 1662. Any inconvenience to Applicant(s) is regretted.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.63/105767, filed 10/26/2020. The effective filing date is 10/26/2020.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I, claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 11-20 drawn to a first method for producing cotton fiber, and of the PIMA S-7 variety species for prosecution along with the bottom third location of the cotton ovule cells and/or ovule epidermal cells on the cotton boll in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicants did not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP § 818.03(a).
Claims 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 2-5 and 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 2-5, 9-10, and 21-24 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 11-20 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2024 and 05/14/2024 are acknowledged and are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 14-19 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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they contain a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they depend.
Claim 14, which depends from claim 1, recites “the proliferating cell aggregate” in line 1. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; Claim 1 does not recite a “proliferating cell aggregate.”
In the interest of compact prosecution Claim 14 is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation of being dependent from claim 12 which does recite a “proliferating cell aggregate.”
Claim 19, which depends from claim 18, is also rejected because it recites in line 2 “the cell suspension” and it is unclear which cell suspension is being referred to from claim 18. Is it the cell suspension formed by growing dissociated cells in a liquid medium or the cryopreserved cell suspension?
In the interest of compact prosecution, the cell suspension recited in claim 19 is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation of referring to the cell suspension formed by growing dissociated cells in a liquid medium recited in claim 18 and not the cryopreserved cell suspension recited in claim 18.
Claim 19 is further rejected because it recites “a fine cell suspension” and it is unclear whether fine is a qualitative modifier synonymous with good (and if so, how good/fine), or a quantitative modifier pertaining to the size of the particles in the suspension. In the specification, applicant states “Homogenizing may include one or more of subculturing the cell suspension; filtering the cell suspension; pipetting and/or decanting the cell suspension; and adding pectinase to the suspension” (para 0013).
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, 12-13, and 20 are unpatentable over Montes (cited in IDS; Montes, R. A. 0. "Comparative Characterization of Bioreactors for In Vitro Cotton Culture," Masters of Science in Chemical Engineering Texas Tech University, 31 May 1993, Pgs. 1-87, Available at: <https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/60739/31295007146227.pdf>.; published MAY 31st 1993) in view of Moser (Moser, H.S., Percy, R.G. and Ray, I.M. (1995) Pima Cotton Improvement, repository.arizona.edu. Available at: https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/210309 (Accessed: 17 February 2026); published 10/04/1995). Claim 1 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 1: A method for producing cotton fiber, the method comprising:
inoculating a bioreactor with cotton cells;
multiplying the cells in the bioreactor;
elongating the multiplied cells; and
harvesting cotton fiber from the elongated cells, wherein the cotton cells are derived
and/or obtained from cotton plants of a varietal selected from PAYMASTER
HS26, PAYMASTERHS200, PD 2164, SA 2413, SEALAND #1 (G.B. X
G.H.), SOUTHLAND Ml, STATION MILLER, TASHKENT 1,
TIDEWATER 29 (G.B. X G.H.), TOOLE, WESTERN STORMPROOF,
ACALA 5, ALLEN 33, CD3HCABCUH- l-89, DELTAPINE 14, DES 24,
DIXIE KING, FJA, M.U.8B UA 7-44, NC 88-95, PAYMASTER HS200, Pima
S-7, Acala and MAXXA, or a progeny of any thereof.
In comparing and characterizing bioreactors for in vitro cotton culture, Montes teaches a method for producing cotton fiber which is “a three-week, two-stage cycle has been designed to grow cotton fibers as shown in Figure 14”(page 48, para 1). The method comprises:
Starting Cotton cell suspension cultures from callus tissue of Gossypium hirsutum L. (page. 13, para 3; “The inoculum for each reactor [i.e., bioreactor] is about 10-20% cell volume of the total operating reactor volume”, page 16; top right corner of Figure 14, page 49) (i.e., inoculating the bioreactor with cotton cells),
A “first stage [that] allows the [cotton] cells to multiply… in a… bioreactor (i.e., multiplying the cells in a bioreactor)(page 48),
A “second stage (elongation)… in which the cells increase in length” (i.e., elongating the multiplied cells), and
“purification and separation… by rotary drum vacuum filtration and subsequent drying” (page 48-50, bottom center of Figure 14, page 49) (i.e., harvesting cotton fiber from the elongated cells).
Montes does not explicitly teach that the cotton cells are derived (i.e., obtained from) cotton plants of a varietal selected from Pima S-7, or a progeny of any thereof.
However, Moser is in the field of cotton breeding and in evaluating the performance of cotton varieties (Abstract) and teaches that Pima S-7 is a high yielding commercial variety (page 154, para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Montes with the high yielding commercially available Pima S-7 variety taught by Moser for the purpose of using cells from high yielding commercially available variety of cotton to produce pima cotton.
Claim 12 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein the bioreactor is inoculated with cells from a
proliferating cell aggregate.
Regarding Claims 12, which depends from claim 1, Montes teaches that “cotton cell suspension cultures were started from callus tissue Gossypium hirsutum L. cell variety SJ1” (i.e., the bioreactor is inoculated with cells from a proliferating cell aggregate)(page 13, last para).
Claim 13 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 13: The method of claim 12, wherein the varietal is Pima S-7 or a progeny
thereof.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12 which depends from claim 1, Moser teaches Pima S-7 as a high-yielding commercially available variety.
Claim 20 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 20: The method of claim 1, wherein the method produces at least 1 kilogram
of cotton fiber for every 4,000 liters of water used in the method.
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 1, Montes teaches a method that uses 773 kg water in seed medium, 7728 kg water in Stage I Medium, and 30912 kg water in Stage II Medium and outputs 227 kg cellulose (cotton fiber) after the Rotary Dryer step such that a ratio of cotton fiber output to water used is {227kg-cellulose/(773kg-water + 7728kg-water+ 30912kg-water)} = {{227kg-cellulose/39,413kg-water}} (Material balance data sheet, Pg. 53, Figure 15). Normalizing for comparison to Applicant’s ratio using cross-multiplication and because the density of water is approximately 1 kg/L results in the following: {x/ 4000L-water} where {x = {{{227kg-cellulose}*{4000L-water}}/39,413L-water} = 23.3kg-cellulose } (i.e., the method produces at least 1 kilogram of cotton fiber for every 4,000 liters of water used in the method).
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montes in view of Moser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Triplett (cited in IDS; Triplett et al. "Ovule and Suspension Culture of a Cotton Fiber Mutant," In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology, 28 February 1989 (28.02.1989), Vol. 25, No. 2., , published 02/28/1989). Claim 6 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the bioreactor is inoculated with cotton ovule
cells and/or ovule epidermal cells.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, Montes and Moser combined teach the method of claim 1.
Montes and Moser do not explicitly disclose wherein the cotton cells are cotton ovule cells and/or ovule epidermal cells.
Triplett is in the field of cotton ovule and suspension cultures (Title and Abstract), and teaches that the cotton cells are cotton ovule cells and/or ovule epidermal cells (“Ovule Culture. Freshly harvested ovaries (bolls) were collected.... Fifty percent of the ovules from a boll (approximately 15 ovules) were cultured in each Magenta box container .. containing 50 ml BT medium”, page 197, col 2, last para) second partial paragraph; Suspension cultures. One day pre-anthesis ovules were removed from ovaries as described for ovule cultures. Before transfer to culture media, the ovules were cut into small pieces with a scalpel blade. Ovule fragments from >100 ovules (-3 ovaries) were transferred to 125 ml flasks containing 50 ml of BT medium ...cultures were gently shaken”, page 198, col 1, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Montes and Moser with cotton ovule cell suspension culture taught by Triplett for the purpose of a generating a cotton cell suspension culture for inoculating a bioreactor (Montes, Pg. 13, first partial paragraph; Pg. 16, first partial paragraph; Pg. 49, Figure 14 legend; see also Figure 14, upper right corner).
Claim 7 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein the cotton ovule cells and/or ovule epidermal
cells are obtained from a cotton boll.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6, Triplett teaches that “the ovules from a boll (approximately 15 ovules) were cultured” (i.e., wherein the cotton ovule cells and/or ovule epidermal cells are obtained from a cotton boll) (page 197, col 2, last para).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montes, Moser and Triplett as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Davidonis (Davidonis, G., & Hinojosa, O. (1994). Influence of seed location on cotton fiber development in planta and in vitro. Plant science, 103(1), 107-113., published 08/4/1994). Claims 8 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 8: The method of claim 6, wherein the cotton ovule cells and/or ovule epidermal
cells are obtained from a bottom third, middle third, or a top third of the cotton boll,
wherein the bottom is a location on the boll to which its growth from a cotton plant
stem began.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 6, Triplett teaches that “the ovules from a boll (approximately 15 ovules) were cultured” (page 197, col 2, last para). Triplett includes the ovules from the bottom third of the boll in their cultures, absent evidence to the contrary.
Triplett does not explicitly teach the cotton ovule cells and/or ovule epidermal
cells are obtained only from a bottom third of the cotton boll as elected by applicant.
However, Davidonis is in the field of cotton fiber development in plant and in vitro (Title) and teaches that a “component of fiber quality, the degree of secondary wall deposition… varies with seed location in a locule” of a boll (page 108, col 1, first partial paragraph), “secondary wall deposition was greatest in fibers located on basal seeds or ovules” (i.e., ovules obtained from the bottom third of the boll), and that “conditions present at the time of ovule excision influenced secondary wall deposition” (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine and modify the teachings of Montes, Moser, Triplett, and Davidonis to thus arrive at the method of claim 6. This method would include specific isolation of ovules “from the apical, medial and basal locations in a locule” of a boll and selection the basal ovules for ovule culture with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ascertain the greatest secondary wall deposition in basal ovule fibers as taught by Davidonis (Abstract).
Claim 11 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 11: The method of claim 8, wherein the cotton ovule cells and/or ovule
epidermal cells are obtained from the bottom third of the cotton boll, and the varietal
is selected from PD 2164, SOUTHLAND Ml, ACALA 5, CD3HCABCUH-l-89,
F J A, Pima S-7, and AcalaMAXXA, or a progeny of any thereof.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 8, Moser teaches Pima S-7 as a high-yielding commercially available variety.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montes and Moser as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Rajasekaran (cited in IDS; Rajasekaran K. Regeneration of plants from cryopreserved embryogenic cell suspension and callus cultures of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Cell Rep. 1996 Aug;15(11):859-64. doi: 10.1007/BF00233157. PMID: 24178225., published 08/31/1996). Claims 14 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein the proliferating cell aggregate is a friable
callus.
Regarding Claims 14, which is being examined as dependent from claim 12, Montes teaches that “cotton cell suspension cultures were started from callus tissue Gossypium hirsutum L. cell variety SJ1” (i.e., the bioreactor is inoculated with cells from a proliferating cell aggregate wherein the proliferating cell aggregate is callus)(page 13, last para).
Montes and Moser do not explicitly teach that the callus is friable.
Rajasekaran is in the field of cotton cell suspension cultures (Title) and teaches a friable callus (“cotyledon and hypocotyl explants ...were placed on callus induction medium ... Callus formed on these explants within 3 to 4 weeks was selectively subcultured to enrich for friable, yellowish green callus”, page 859, col 2, last para through page 860, col 1, first partial paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Montes and with the friable callus phenotype taught by Rajasekaran for the purpose of inoculating cotton suspension cultures and bioreactors (Montes, page 13 first partial paragraph; page 16, first partial paragraph).
Claim 15-16 are recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 15: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
obtaining cells from a cotton explant; and
contacting the cells from the cotton explant with a callus induction medium to produce
the friable callus.
Claim 16: The method of claim 15, wherein the cells from a cotton explant are from
cotton apical meristems, cotyledons, young leaves, hypocotyls, ovules, ovule epidermal
cells, stems, mature leaves, flower, flower stalks, floral whorls, roots, bulbs, germinated
seeds, somatic and zygotic embryo, and/or cambial meristematic cells (CMC).
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 14, and Claim 16, which depends from claim 15, Rajasekaran teaches a friable callus derived from cells from “cotton… cotyledon and hypocotyl explants… placed on callus induction medium” and “selectively subcultured to enrich for friable, yellowish green callus”, page 859, col 2, last para through page 860, col 1, first partial paragraph).
Claim 17 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 17: The method of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises:
dissociating cells from the friable callus;
culturing the dissociated cells; and
inoculating the bioreactor with the cultured dissociated cells.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 15, Montes teaches that “cotton cell suspension cultures were started from callus tissue Gossypium hirsutum cell variety SJ1 (Trolinder et al.., 1987)… subcultured every two weeks … maintained at 20°C and 100-rpm” (page 13, last para) and inoculating the bioreactor with the inoculum or cultured cells (top right corner of Figure 14, page 49). Rajasekaran teaches that after two to four rounds of selective subculture of callus to enrich for friable yellowish green callus, “Embryogenic callus capable of forming small globular somatic embryos appeared” and of “finely dispersed embryogenic callus cultures in liquid maintenance medium shaken… on gyratory shaker” (i.e., culturing the dissociated cells) where “cell suspension cultures were initiated from [the] finely dispersed embryogenic callus cultures in liquid maintenance medium shaken… on gyratory shaker”(i.e., inoculating the bioreactor with cultured the bioreactor or cell suspension was inoculated by the addition of a liquid culture of cells dissociated or finely dispersed from the friable or embryogenic callus) (page 860, col 1, first two paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Montes and Moser with the friable callus phenotype.
Claim 18 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 18: The method of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises:
culturing the dissociated cells in a liquid or semi-solid medium to form a cell suspension;
cryopreserving the cell suspension; and
inoculating the bioreactor with the cryopreserved cell suspension.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 17, Rajasekaran teaches that “cell suspension cultures were initiated from finely dispersed embryogenic callus cultures in liquid maintenance medium shaken… on gyratory shaker”(i.e., culturing the dissociated cells in a liquid medium to form a cell suspension) (page 860, col 1, first two paragraphs), and “cell suspension cultures cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen after slow cooling” (i.e., cryopreserving the cell suspension) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Montes and Moser with cryopreserved cotton cells suspensions taught by Rajasekaran for the purpose of inoculating cotton suspension cultures and bioreactors with the cryopreserved cell suspension as inoculum with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to this because long term cryopreservation of freshly initiated embryogenic callus and cell suspension cultures of cotton provides “a reliable and uniform source material for experimental use and germplasm preservation without the need for labor intensive maintenance procedures” and avoids “the problems associated with long term cultures due to decrease in embryogenic and regeneration potential and increase in accumulated somatic mutations in callus and suspension cultures over successive subcultures” (Rajasekaran, page 863, col 1).
Claim 19 is recited below for reference within this text:
Claim 19: The method of claim 18, wherein the method further comprises homogenizing the cell suspension to form a fine cell suspension.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 18, Rajasekaran teaches that prior to treatment with cryoprotectants, “suspension cells were filtered to get a homogeneous <840um fraction” (i.e. further homogenizing the cell suspension to form a fine cell suspension) (page 860, col 1, para 6).\
Conclusion
Claims 1, 6-8, and 11-20 are rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVETTE B TAMUKONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1040. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached 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.
/YVETTE BIH TAMUKONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662