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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/23/2025 and 8/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Maintained 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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmisano et al. (Bacillus sonorensis sp. nov., a close relative of Bacillus licheniformis, isolated from soil in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2001, 51, pages 1671-1679) in view of Takanohashi et al. (US 2018/0213795; published August 2, 2018).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a method of controlling insect damage comprising planting a plant or seed of a plant where the plant or seed have a coating or partial coating of a composition comprising a biologically pure culture of a bacillus licheniformis K-357, or a mutant thereof having all the identifying characteristics thereof in an amount suitable to improve plant yield and optionally, one or more carriers, excipients, nutrients, or microbial-, biological-, or chemical-crop protection agents; wherein the composition excludes a Bacillus subtilis. (claim 1)
Applicant claims a method of controlling insect damage comprising delivering to seed, foliage, roots, soil or growth medium a composition comprising a biologically pure culture of a bacillus licheniformis K-357, or a mutant thereof having all the identifying characteristics thereof in an amount suitable to improve plant yield and optionally, one or more carriers, excipients, nutrients, or microbial-, biological-, or chemical-crop protection agents; wherein the composition excludes a Bacillus subtilis. (claim 5)
Applicant claims a method of controlling insect damage comprising applying to a plant or seeds of a plant a coating of a composition comprising a biologically pure culture of a bacillus licheniformis K-357, or a mutant thereof having all the identifying characteristics thereof in an amount suitable to improve plant yield and optionally, one or more carriers, excipients, nutrients, or microbial-, biological-, or chemical-crop protection agents; wherein the composition excludes a Bacillus subtilis. (claim 10)
Applicant claims a plant or seed of a plant comprising a coating of a composition comprising a biologically pure culture of a bacillus licheniformis K-357, or a mutant thereof having all the identifying characteristics thereof in an amount suitable to improve plant yield and optionally, one or more carriers, excipients, nutrients, or microbial-, biological-, or chemical-crop protection agents; wherein the composition excludes a Bacillus subtilis. (claim 13)
Takanohashi et al. teaches a composition that has the excellent effect of controlling plant disease comprising Bacillus APM-1 and at least one compound selected from metalaxyl and fludioxonil (abstract). The bacterial strain is described as similar to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens [0011]. Solid carriers include clays, urea and peat moss, carriers include water and oils and auxiliary substances include anti-freezing agents and thickeners [0019]. The bacterial strain is effective in amounts of 104 to 1013 cfu/g [0020]. The formulations are applied to cultivation sites, foliage, soil, roots, seed or vegetative propagation organ by spraying, immersion or a wet powder coating [0027-34]. Plants treated include agricultural crops selected from cotton, soybean, sugar cane and sunflower; cereals; vegetables such as solanaceous crops, Cucurbitaceae crops, cruciferous vegetables and legumes; fruits such as pome, citrus, berries and stone fruit; grasses; and ornamental plants, [0039-46]. The plants can be conferred with pest resistance and herbicide tolerance from a gene of glyphosate metabolizing enzyme from Bacillus licheniformis [0051]. The plant diseases controlled include diseases of tobacco from Phytophthora nicotianae known as black shank [0107]. Plants can also confer pest resistance with Resistance Aphid Gene 1 to cotton Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incongnita) [0093].
Takanohashi et al. do not teach methods of controlling insect damage or a plant or seed of a plant having a coating of a composition comprising Bacillus licheniformis K-357 and optional carriers. However, Takanohashi et al. teach conferring pest resistance to Meloidogyne incongnita and that Bacillus licheniformis is used to confer herbicide tolerance from a gene of glyphosate metabolizing enzyme. Therefore, Takanohashi teach controlling insects on plants and seeds by applying compositions comprising treating bacillus species to plants which confer resistance. The specific species Bacillus licheniformis K-357 is not disclosed however, Palmisano et al. teach a pure culture of Bacillus licheniformis K-357 as L87-7 (NRRL B-23318; TG1-15) is one of the strains isolated from soil at Tumamoc Hill in the Sonoran Desert (Table 1, page 1672). Based on metabolic characteristics Bacillus licheniformis showed pale-cream on pH5-6 and tyrosine agar and reddish brown in glycerol/glutamate medium and had higher salt tolerance than Group 2 species (page 1674).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
Takanohashi et al. and Palmisano et al. teach bacillus licheniformis species. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Takanohashi et al. and Palmisano et al. to control insect damage by planting a plant which has been coated with a composition comprising Bacillus licheniformis K-357 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Takanohashi et al. and Palmisano et al. because Takanohashi et al. teach plants can be conferred with pest resistance and herbicide tolerance from a gene of glyphosate metabolizing enzyme from Bacillus licheniformis and Resistance Aphid Gene 1 confers resistance to cotton Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incongnita) and Palmisano et al. teach pure cultures of bacillus licheniformis K-357 have higher salt tolerance than other species of Bacillus.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Takanohashi et al. and Palmisano et al. make a plant or seed of a plant having a coating of a composition comprising Bacillus licheniformis K-357 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Takanohashi et al. and Palmisano et al. because Takanohashi et al. teach plants can be conferred with pest resistance and herbicide tolerance from a gene of glyphosate metabolizing enzyme from Bacillus licheniformis and Resistance Aphid Gene 1 confers resistance to cotton Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incongnita) and Palmisano et al. teach pure cultures of bacillus licheniformis K-357 have higher salt tolerance than other species of Bacillus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues Palmisano fails to mention pesticidal applications of B. licheniformus and there is no mention of plants, seeds, plant growth or any use of the isolate in any plant-related manner, only salt tolerance. Therefore, Applicant argues Palmisano does not teach or suggest a link between the phenotypical characteristic and pesticidal activity. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because the rejection is based on the teachings of Palmisano et al. in combination with Takanohashi and Takanohashi et al. teaches a composition that has the excellent effect of controlling plant disease comprising Bacillus APM-1 and at least one compound selected from metalaxyl and fludioxonil (abstract).
Next, Applicant argues Takanohashi does not teach that Bacillus APM-1 alone can improve plant yield and reduce or prevent plant damage. Applicant also argues that Takanohashi does not teach or suggest applying B. licheniformis alone is applied to plants and there is not suggestion that unmodified B. licheniformis would exhibit the herbicide degradation efficacy seen in the modified gene. Applicant further submits there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Palmisano and Tankanohashi and choose K-357 strain The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because the claims recite comprising language which allows for the inclusion of other compounds and other bacillus species excluding only Bacillus subtilis. Since Takanohashi teach the plants can be conferred with pest resistance and herbicide tolerance from a gene of glyphosate metabolizing enzyme from Bacillus licheniformis one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to selected Bacillus licheniformis K-357 as a strain which can be used to improve pest resistance in plants because Palmisano et al. teach pure cultures of bacillus licheniformis K-357 have higher salt tolerance than other species of Bacillus.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmisano et al. (Bacillus sonorensis sp. nov., a close relative of Bacillus licheniformis, isolated from soil in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2001, 51, pages 1671-1679) in view of Takanohashi et al. (US 2018/0213795; published August 2, 2018), as applied to claims 1-18 in view of Fang et al. (CN101385468 (machine translation); published March 18, 2009).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a plant or seed of a plant comprising a coating of a composition comprising a biologically pure culture of a bacillus licheniformis K-357, or a mutant thereof having all the identifying characteristics thereof in an amount suitable to improve plant yield and optionally, one or more carriers, excipients, nutrients, or microbial-, biological-, or chemical-crop protection agents; wherein the composition excludes a Bacillus subtilis. (claim 13)
The teachings of Takanohashi et al. and Palmisano et al. are addressed in the above 103 rejection.
Takanohashi et al. and Palmisano et al. do not teach combining bacillus licheniformis K-357 with soy protein hydrolysate, chelated ferrous sulfate and other optional carriers. It is for this reason that Fang et al. is joined.
Fang et al. teaches a microbial inoculum for preventing black shank comprising bacillus licheniformis GP13 in a fermentation medium comprising 5 grams of soy peptone (protein hydrolysate), 0.02 grams ferrous sulfate, 0.01 percent of an antifoaming agent and water (abstract). This produces a bacterial solution comprising 15 billion CFU/ml and metalaxyl was added and the formulations were used as filling seedling substrates, topdressing and cultivating (page 5). The shelf life can be doubled to two years is the bacterial solution is dried and concentrated (page 6).
Takanohashi et al., Palmisano et al. and Fang et al. teach bacillus licheniformis species. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Takanohashi et al., Palmisano et al. and Fang et al. to make a plant or seed which has been coated with a composition comprising Bacillus licheniformis K-357 with soy protein hydrolysate and chelated ferrous sulfate with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Takanohashi et al., Palmisano et al. and Fang et al. because Palmisano et al. teach pure cultures of bacillus licheniformis K-357 have higher salt tolerance than other species of Bacillus and Fang et al. teach forming microbial inoculants by combining bacillus licheniformis with soy peptone and ferrous sulfate to form a bacterial solutions with can be added to seedling substrates, top dressing and cultivated fields.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the above response.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Palmisano et al. (Bacillus sonorensis sp. nov., a close relative of Bacillus licheniformis, isolated from soil in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2001, 51, pages 1671-1679) in view of Fang et al. (CN101385468 (machine translation); published March 18, 2009).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising i) a biologically pure culture of a bacillus licheniformis K-357, or a mutant thereof having all the identifying characteristics thereof in an amount suitable to improve plant yield, ii) soy protein hydrolysate, iii) chelated ferrous sulfate and iv) optionally, one or more carriers, excipients, nutrients, or microbial-, biological-, or chemical-crop protection agents; wherein the composition excludes a Bacillus subtilis. (claim 20)
Palmisano et al. teach the culture of Bacillus licheniformis K-357 as L87-7 (NRRL B-23318; TG1-15) is one of the strains isolated from soil at Tumamoc Hill in the Sonoran Desert (Table 1, page 1672). Based on metabolic characteristics Bacillus licheniformis showed pale-cream on pH5-6 and tyrosine agar and reddish brown in glycerol/glutamate medium and had higher salt tolerance than Group 2 species (page 1674).
Palmisano et al. do not teach combining bacillus licheniformis K-357 with soy protein hydrolysate, chelated ferrous sulfate and other optional carriers. It is for this reason that Fang et al. is joined.
Fang et al. teaches a microbial inoculum for preventing black shank comprising bacillus licheniformis GP13 in a fermentation medium comprising 5 grams of soy peptone (protein hydrolysate), 0.02 grams ferrous sulfate, 0.01 percent of an antifoaming agent and water (abstract). This produces a bacterial solution comprising 15 billion CFU/ml and metalaxyl was added and the formulations were used as filling seedling substrates, topdressing and cultivating (page 5). The shelf life can be doubled to two years is the bacterial solution is dried and concentrated (page 6).
Palmisano et al. and Fang et al. are both drawn to bacillus licheniformis species. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Palmisano et al. and Fang et al. to form a composition by combining bacillus licheniformis K-357 with soy protein hydrolysate and chelated ferrous sulfate with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Palmisano et al. and Fang et al. because Palmisano et al. teach pure cultures of bacillus licheniformis K-357 have higher salt tolerance than other species of Bacillus and Fang et al. teach forming microbial inoculants by combining bacillus licheniformis with soy peptone and ferrous sulfate to form a bacterial solutions with can be added to seedling substrates, topdressing and cultivated fields.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the above response.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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 DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1617