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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This application, filed on 2/27/2023, is a 371 of PCT/US2021/048480 filed on 8/31/2021, which claims benefit of 63/072,666 filed on 8/31/2020.
The effective filing date of the instant application is August 31, 2020.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 25 and 27-29 and Bacillus velezensis as species of microbe and 1097 Daltons MW as the species of composition in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 31-37, 39-40, 43, 47-49 and 51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 1, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 25 and 27-29 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 5/26/2023; 8/21/2023; 8/21/2023; 1/22/2025; and 10/27/2025 all comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. All references were considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “when analyzed according to the method of Example 2” in lines 10-11; “when analyzed according to the method of Table 1” in lines 14-15; “analyzed according to the method of Example 3 and referenced to FIG. 8” in lines 21-23; and “comprises one or a plurality of amino acids selected from Table 6 or Table 7” in lines 23-24. The reference to examples, tables and figures renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what limitations are required by the claim. It is suggested that the subject matter from the relevant examples, tables and figures be copied into the claim to obviate this rejection.
Claim 1 recites “(position relative to SEQ ID NO:1)” in lines 23-24. The set of parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether all positions are required to be relative to SEQ ID NO:1, or there are other positions possible that are not relative to SEQ ID NO:1.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 25 and 27-29 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1 but failing to remedy the indefiniteness therein.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of microbes are cultured in step (a)”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which recites “obtaining a microbe, and culturing said microbe”. Thus, by requiring a plurality of microbes, claim 4 does not further limit claim 1 from which it depends, and is an improper dependent claim.
Claim 29 recites “the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a plurality of compositions of (b) to the plant”. Claim 29 depends from claim 1, which recites “applying a composition obtained or derived from the microbe to the plant or a plant part of the plant”. Thus, by requiring a plurality of compositions, claim 29 does not further limit claim 1 from which it depends, and is an improper dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10, 12-13, 18, 25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Asolkar et al. (US2015/0335031 A1, published on Nov. 26, 2015).
Regarding claim 1(a), Asolkar teaches a Bacillus strain with antifungal, antibacterial and growth promotion activity (title). Asolkar teaches isolation and characterization of Bacillus sp. isolate F727 (i.e. obtaining a microbe) (p.7, [0141]). Asolkar further teaches isolate F727 was fermented in 12 different liquid media (i.e. culturing said microbe) (p.18, [0225]).
Regarding claim 1(b), Asolkar teaches F727 cells were fermented in three different growth media; two week old cucumber plants were sprayed with approximately 3mL of F727 whole-cell broth, F727 supernatant or F727 cells obtained from each of these three fermentations ([0210], p.15, Example 10). Asolkar further teaches compound “A” obtainable from a Bacillus species is toxic to a pest, has a molecular weight of about 1020-1060 as determined by LC/MS, and has a HPLC retention time of about 6-12 minutes (p.4, [0102]).
Regarding claim 1(c), Asolkar teaches the plants were then incubated in a growth room until disease development ([0210], p.15, Example 10).
Regarding claim 1(d), Asolkar teaches disease severity (i.e. biotic stress response) was evaluated for disease severity by visual evaluation of a leaf area symptomatic of the disease and a disease rating was obtained (p.14, Example 6 and p.15, Example 10).
Regarding claim 2, Asolkar teaches applying F727 whole-cell broth, F727 supernatant or F727 cells obtained from each of these three fermentations (p.15, Example 10).
Regarding claim 3, Asolkar teaches Bacillus sp. strain F727 (p.7, Example 1).
Regarding claim 4, Asolkar teaches isolate F727 was fermented in 12 different liquid media (i.e. culturing a plurality of microbes) (p.18, [0225]).
Regarding claim 5, Asolkar teaches applying F727 whole-cell broth, F727 supernatant or F727 cells obtained from each of these three fermentations (p.15, Example 10).
Regarding claim 10, Asolkar teaches a combination comprising said Bacillus sp. isolate F727, a substantially pure culture, cell fraction, extract, Supernatant and Substances, metabolites or compounds derived from said strain or extract thereof and at least one of (a) a second Substance which may be a chemical or biological pesticide and (b) at least one of a carrier, diluent, surfactant, adjuvant (p.2, [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Asolkar teaches the pesticide is selected from a bactericide, a fungicide and a nematicide (p.2, [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, Asolkar teaches the compositions can be used as anti-phytopathogenic agents, which is an agent that modulates the growth of a plant pathogen or alternatively prevents infection of a plant by a plant pathogen, including but not limited to a fungus, bacteria, actinomycete or virus (i.e. the biotic stress is the presence of a phytopathogen; presence of a fungus) (p.7, [0137]).
Regarding claim 18, Asolkar teaches tomato plants at a two true leaf stage were sprayed with 2mL of F727 whole cell broth (i.e. pre-harvest) (p.16, Example 13). Asolkar teaches two week old tomato plants were sprayed with approximately 2mL of F727 whole-cell broth, F727 supernatant and F727 cells (i.e. pre-harvest) (p.15, Example 11). Asolkar teaches corn, soy, wheat, rice, sorghum and tomato seeds were submerged for 24 hours in F727 suspension prepared in 10mM magnesium sulfate (p.19, [0228]). Asolkar teaches tomato plants were treated with supernatant from an F727 fermentation; each plant was sprayed with approximately 3mL of cell-free fermentation supernatant (i.e. prior to germination) (p.14, [0202]).
Regarding claim 25, Asolkar teaches tomato plants [0206], [0212]; cucumber plants [0210]; pepper plants [0208]; corn, soy, wheat, rice, sorghum seeds [0228]; and lettuce plants [0203]. Plant parts also include harvested material, and vegetative and generative propagation material, for example cuttings, tubers, rhizomes, offshoots and seeds.[0116] (i.e. a plant part thereof is harvested).
Regarding claim 27, Asolkar teaches percentage disease of each fruit was determined by observing mycelial coverage on each grape (i.e. visual assessment of the plant part) (p.19, Example 20). Asolkar teaches total fresh weight [of planted corn seeds] was recorded after 2 weeks’ growth (i.e. biomass of the plant part) (p.19, Example 21).
Regarding claim 28, Asolkar teaches corn, soy, wheat, rice, sorghum and tomato seeds (i.e. plant part is a seed) (p.19, Example 19). Asolkar teaches grapes (i.e. plant part is a fruit) (p.19, Example 20). Asolkar teaches tomato plants were sprayed with 2mL of F727 whole cell broth (i.e. plant part is a leaf) (p.16, Example 13).
Regarding claim 29, which is being interpreted to require a composition comprising more than one compound, Asolkar teaches spraying two week old cucumber plants with 3mL of F727 whole cell broth + Regalia® 5% at 1:2000 (p.15-16 Example 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asolkar et al. (US2015/0335031 A1, published on Nov. 26, 2015) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Complete genome sequence of Bacillus velezensis LPL‑K103, an antifungal cyclic lipopeptide bacillomycin L producer from the surface of lemon”, 3 Biotech, 2020, Vol. 10, Article 8, 6 pages).
The teachings of Asolkar et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Asolkar does not teach wherein the composition is a substantially purified cyclic lipopeptide.
However, Zhang teaches Bacillus velezensis LPL-K103, an antifungal cyclic lipopeptide bacillomycin L producer (title). Zhang teaches B. velezensis LPL-K103 can produce bacillomycin L, an antifungal lipopeptide with a molecular mass of 1034.55 Da (p.1, 2nd column). Zhang further teaches that B. velezensis acts as a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium by stimulating plant growth and inhibiting the growth of phytopathogens, which is related to the production of a vast array of biologically active secondary metabolites (p.2, 2nd column 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Bacillus sp. F727 strain taught by Asolkar with B. velezensis LPL-K103 strain taught by Zhang in the composition taught by Asolkar. Each of Asolkar and Zhang teach Bacillus strains for antifungal functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that selected a Bacillus strain known to produce cyclic lipopeptides taught by Zhang would predictably result in producing a composition comprising a substantially pure cyclic lipopeptide, because Zhang teaches B. velezensis produces cyclic lipopeptide bacillomycin L, and it was known in the art at the time of invention that cyclic lipopeptides have antifungal activity.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 25 and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 12, 17, 20-21 and 24-29 of copending Application No. 18/706,970 in view of Asolkar et al. (US2015/0335031 A1, published on Nov. 26, 2015).
Claim 1 of ‘970 recites a method of producing a bacterial composition capable of conferring benefit to a target, the method comprising:
(a) obtaining a source bacterium of the taxonomic family Bacillaceae;
(b) placing the source bacterium in a fermentation medium;
(c) incubating the source bacterium under one or more condition(s) that promote an elongation of the logarithmic or exponential growth phase of the bacterium, to produce an incubated material; wherein the incubated material comprises a population of bacteria that comprises a Smooth morphology phenotype at a level of at least 10 times greater than the level of any other morphology phenotype; and
(d) removing a product from the incubated material of (c);
wherein the product of (d) comprises a composition of benefit to a target (relevant to instant claim 1(a) and 1(b), instant claim 3 and instant claim 4).
Claim 5 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, wherein the product of (d) comprises bacterial cells (relevant to instant claims 1(a) and instant claim 2).
Claim 6 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, wherein the product of (d) comprises bacterial cell broth and/or a substantially cell-free supernatant of the incubated material of (c) (relevant to instant claim 5).
Claim 12 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, wherein the product of (d) comprises a substantially purified bacterial-produced composition, wherein the substantially-purified bacterial produced composition comprises a plurality of different lipopeptides including a Fengycin, an Iturin at a concentration of at least 520 mg/L, a Surfactin at a concentration of at least 150 mg/L, and any plurality and/or combination of the preceding (relevant to instant claim 8).
Claim 17 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, further comprising placing the incubated material, or composition derived therefrom, in a formulation medium; wherein the formulation medium comprises at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a compatible carrier, a tackifier, a microbial stabilizer, a fungicide, an antibacterial agent, an herbicide, a nematicide, an insecticide, a plant growth regulator, a rodenticide, and a nutrient (relevant to instant claim 10).
Claim 20 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, wherein the target is a plant or plant element (relevant to instant claim 1(b)).
Claim 21 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 20, wherein the plant element comprises seed tissue, leaf tissue, root tissue, or any plurality or combination of the preceding (relevant to instant claim 28).
Claim 24 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, further comprising incubating the product and/or target under conditions that promote maintenance, growth, and/or reproduction (relevant to instant claim 1(c)).
Claim 24 of ‘970 does not teach assessing at least one parameter of at least one part of the plant for biotic stress response.
However, Asolkar teaches F727 cells were fermented in three different growth media; two week old cucumber plants were sprayed with approximately 3mL of F727 whole-cell broth, F727 supernatant or F727 cells obtained from each of these three fermentations (p.15, Example 10). Asolkar teaches the plants were then incubated in a growth room until disease development (relevant to instant claim 1c) (p.15, Example 10). Asolkar teaches disease severity (i.e. biotic stress response) was evaluated for disease severity by visual evaluation of a leaf area symptomatic of the disease and a disease rating was obtained (relevant to instant claim 1d) (p.14, Example 6 and p.15, Example 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of ‘970 to further grow the plants and evaluate disease severity by visual evaluation taught by Asolkar. Each of ‘970 and Asolkar teach administering microbial compositions to plants.
Claim 25 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, wherein the benefit is bioactivity against a pest or pathogen (relevant to instant claim 13).
Claim 26 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 25, wherein the pest is a nematode (relevant to instant claim 18).
Claim 27 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 25, wherein the pathogen is a fungus (relevant to instant claim 18).
Claim 28 of ’970 recites the method of Claim 20, wherein the benefit to the plant or plant element is an improvement in health, yield, vigor, disease resistance, pest resistance, viability, reproduction, or growth (relevant to instant claim 27).
Claim 29 of ‘970 recites the method of Claim 1, wherein the source bacterium is of the taxonomic genus Bacillus or Lysinibacillus (relevant to instant claim 3).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 25, 27 and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 16-29 and 31 of copending Application No. 19/153,040 in view of Asolkar et al. (US2015/0335031 A1, published on Nov. 26, 2015).
Claim 1 of ‘040 recites a synthetic composition comprising a genetically engineered microbe, whole cell broth therefrom, and/or an exudate therefrom, wherein said genetically engineered microbe comprises at least one genetic mutation at at least one locus within its genome, wherein said genetic mutation alters the production of one or more secondary metabolite, and wherein said genetic mutation imparts the capability of control of at least one pathogen to the genetically engineered microbe; wherein the at least one locus is selected from the group consisting of: kinA, thrC, and any plurality and/or combination of the preceding; wherein the genetic mutation is a knockout, knock-in, disruption, insertion of at least one nucleotide, deletion of at least one nucleotide, replacement of at least one nucleotide, chemical modification of at least one nucleotide, molecular structure alteration of at least one nucleotide, downregulation of at least one gene, upregulation of at least one gene, and/or any combination and/or plurality of the preceding (relevant to instant claim 1(a)).
Claim 4 of ‘040 recites the synthetic composition of claim 1, wherein the non-genetically engineered microbe from which the genetically engineered microbe was obtained is from the genus Bacillus or the genus Paenibacillus (relevant to instant claims 2-4).
Claim 6 of ‘040 recites the synthetic composition of claim 1, wherein the secondary metabolite is a cyclic lipopeptide or a polyketide (relevant to instant claim 8).
Claim 16 of ‘040 recites a method of controlling a pathogen, said method comprising applying to an object the synthetic composition of Claim 1 (relevant to instant claim 1(b)).
Claim 17 of ‘040 recites the method of claim 16, wherein the pathogen is a bacterium (relevant to instant claims 13, 27).
Claim 18 of ‘040 recites the method of claim 16, wherein the pathogen is selected from the group consisting of a fungus, a bacterium and/or any combination and/or plurality of the preceding (relevant to instant claim 13).
Claim 19 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 18, wherein the fungus is of a genus selected from the group consisting of: Fusarium, Penicillium, Botrytis, and Pythium (relevant to instant claim 13).
Claim 20 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 16, wherein the synthetic composition further comprises one or more agents selected from the group consisting of: a pesticide, an herbicide, a bactericide, a fungicide, an insecticide, a virucide, a miticide, a nematicide, an acaricide, a plant growth regulator, a rodenticide, an anti-algae agent, a biocontrol agent, a fertilizer, a biopesticide, a biostimulant, and any combination and/or plurality of the preceding (relevant to instant claim 12).
Claim 21 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 16, wherein the object is a plant or plant part (relevant to instant claims 1(b); 25).
Claim 21 of ‘040 does not recite (c) placing the plant under suitable conditions for growth and (d) assessing at least one parameter of at least one part of the plant for biotic stress response.
However, Asolkar teaches F727 cells were fermented in three different growth media; two week old cucumber plants were sprayed with approximately 3mL of F727 whole-cell broth, F727 supernatant or F727 cells obtained from each of these three fermentations (p.15, Example 10). Asolkar teaches the plants were then incubated in a growth room until disease development (relevant to instant claim 1c) (p.15, Example 10). Asolkar teaches disease severity (i.e. biotic stress response) was evaluated for disease severity by visual evaluation of a leaf area symptomatic of the disease and a disease rating was obtained (relevant to instant claim 1d) (p.14, Example 6 and p.15, Example 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of ‘040 to further grow the plants and evaluate disease severity by visual evaluation taught by Asolkar. Each of ‘040 and Asolkar teach administering microbial compositions to plants.
Claim 22 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 21, wherein the plant part is a root, leaf, stem, flower, seed, bulb, or fruit (relevant to instant claim 28).
Claim 23 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 16, wherein the composition of (b) further comprises one or more formulation components selected from the group consisting of: a salt, a binder, a surface-active agent, a surfactant, a wetting agent, a dispersing agent, an emulsifying agent, a solubilizing agent, an organic solvent, a gelling agent, a thickening agent, an anti-settling agent, a preservative, a stabilizer, an anti-free compound, a plurality of any of the preceding, and any combination of the preceding (relevant to instant claim 10).
Claim 24 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 16, wherein the composition further comprises one or more additional agents selected from the group consisting of: a pesticide, an herbicide, a bactericide, a fungicide, an insecticide, a virucide, a miticide, a tematicide, an acaricide, a plant growth regulator, a rodenticide, an anti-algae agent, biocontrol agent, a fertilizer, a biopesticide, a biostimulant, and any combination and/or plurality of the preceding (relevant to instant claim 12).
Claim 25 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 21, wherein the synthetic composition, whole cell broth, or exudate is applied to the plant or plant part prior to germination (relevant to instant claim 18).
Claim 26 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 21 wherein the synthetic composition, whole cell broth, or exudate is applied to the plant or plant part post-harvest (relevant to instant claim 18).
Claim 27 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 21, wherein the synthetic composition, whole cell broth, or exudate is applied to the plant or plant part during the vegetative phase of the plant (relevant to instant claim 18).
Claim 28 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 21, wherein the synthetic composition, whole cell broth, or exudate is applied to the plant or plant during the reproductive phase of the plant (relevant to instant claim 18).
Claim 29 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 21, wherein the synthetic composition, whole cell broth, or exudate is applied to the plant or plant part pre-harvest (relevant to instant claim 28).
Claim 31 of ‘040 recites the method of Claim 21, further comprising applying a plurality of compositions to the plant or plant part (relevant to instant claim 29).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPA MISHRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 1:30pm 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, Louise W. Humphrey can be reached at (571) 272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/DEEPA MISHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
