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 .
Applicants amendment filed 5/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 10, 13 and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 5/20/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson et al. (US 2017/0035054; published February 9, 2017) in view of Blibech et al. (Isolation of entomopathogenic Bacillus from a biodynamic olive farm and their pathogenicity to lepidopteran and coleopteran insect pests, Crop Protection, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2012, pages 72-77) and 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).
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 which functions as an insecticide in the composition, 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 which functions as an insecticide in the composition, 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 which functions as an insecticide in the composition, 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 which functions as an insecticide in the composition, 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)
Pederson et al. teaches plant propagation material treated with nematode-antagonistic biocontrol agent acquire tolerances to pesticidal activity which increase yield and pesticidal activity in sugarbeets (abstract; limitation of claims 8 and 17). The nematode-antagonistic biocontrol agent includes nematophagous bacteria selected from Bacillus licheniformis and synthetic nematicides selected from abamectin [0015-19; limitation of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13 and 15]. The active ingredient are used with other ingredients selected from solid carriers, and auxiliaries including surfactants and other active ingredients [0025-30; limitation of claims 1, 5, 10 and 13]. The bacterial strain is effective in amounts of 1x106 to 1011 cfu/g [0032; limitation of claims 2, 6, 7, 11 and 14]. The formulations are applied to seed prior to sowing by soaking in a liquid compositions or coating them with a solid composition [0034; limitation of claims 1, 5, 10 and 13].
Pederson et al. teach controlling insects in sugarbeet seeds by applying compositions comprising treating bacillus licheniformis to plants control nematodes but does not specify selecting Bacillus licheniformis. It is for this reason that Blibech et al. is joined. The specific species Bacillus licheniformis K-357 is not disclosed. It is for this reason that Palmisano is joined.
Blibech et al. characterizes 40 Bacillus isolates including Bacillus licheniformis which are entomopathogenic against lepidopterans (abstract). Bacillus-based biological control agents are widely known as safe alternatives to chemical pesticides for control of insect pests (page 72, 1.Introduction). Four different isolates of Bacillus licheniformis were found to increase insect mortality of pests on olive trees (Table 1). The conclusion is that the Bacillus strains have potential to control insect pests in olive tree farming (page 76, paragraph 1).
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).
Pederson et al., Blibech et al. and Palmisano et al. all teach bacillus licheniformis species. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Pederson et al., Blibech 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 which functions as an insecticide or to make a plant or seed of a plant having a coating with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Pederson et al., Blibech et al. and Palmisano et al. to control insect damage on plant seeds because Blibech teach that bacillus licheniformis species are known to have insecticidal effects on insects and Palmisano et al. teach pure cultures of bacillus licheniformis K-357 have higher salt tolerance than other species of Bacillus.
Claims 4, 9, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson et al. (US 2017/0035054; published February 9, 2017) in view of Blibech et al. (Isolation of entomopathogenic Bacillus from a biodynamic olive farm and their pathogenicity to lepidopteran and coleopteran insect pests, Crop Protection, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2012, pages 72-77) and 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), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 in further view of Colagiero et al. (Diversity and biocontrol potential of bacterial consortic associated to root-knot nematodes, Biological Control 120 (2018), pages 11-16).
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 Pederson et al., Blibech et al. and Palmisano et al. are addressed in the above 103 rejection.
With respect to claims 4 and 9, Pederson et al., Blibech et al. and Palmisano et al. do not specify the nematode species is root-knot nematodes of the Meloidogeny species, specifically Meloidogyne incognita. With respect to claims 12 and 16, Pederson et al., Blibech et al. and Palmisano et al. do not specify treating plant roots with the composition. It is for this reason that Colagiero et al. is joined.
Colagiero et al. teach inoculating soil of tomato seedlings with Bacillus licheniformis with Meloidogyne incognita reduced nematode density without affect plants or root weight (abstract). The plant roots were immersed in the bacterial suspensions for 1 minute before transplanting in sterile soil (page 12, section 2.3 paragraph 2).
Pederson et al., Blibech et al., Palmisano et al. and Colagiero et al. teach bacillus licheniformis species. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Pederson et al., Blibech et al., Palmisano et al. and Colagiero et al. to treat Meloidogyne incongnita with Bacillus licheniformis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Pederson et al., Blibech et al., Palmisano et al. and Colagiero et al. because Colagiero et al. teach bacillus licheniformis reduces density of Meloidogyne incongnita on tomato plants without affecting plant and root growth.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Pederson et al., Blibech et al., Palmisano et al. and Colagiero et al. to treat plant roots with Bacillus licheniformis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Pederson et al., Blibech et al., Palmisano et al. and Colagiero et al. and treat plant roots because Colagiero et al. teach immersing tomato seedling roots in bacterial suspensions containing bacillus licheniformis without affecting plant and root growth.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson et al. (US 2017/0035054; published February 9, 2017) in view of Blibech et al. (Isolation of entomopathogenic Bacillus from a biodynamic olive farm and their pathogenicity to lepidopteran and coleopteran insect pests, Crop Protection, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2012, pages 72-77) and 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), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 in further 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 Pederson et al., Blibech et al. and Palmisano et al. are addressed in the above 103 rejection.
Pederson et al., Blibech 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).
Pederson et al., Blibech 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 Pederson et al., Blibech 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 Pederson et al., Blibech 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.
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, see Applicant Arguments page 7 of 11, filed 5/20/2026, with respect to Takanohashi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blibech et al. (Isolation of entomopathogenic Bacillus from a biodynamic olive farm and their pathogenicity to lepidopteran and coleopteran insect pests, Crop Protection, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2012, pages 72-77).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5/20/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Palmisano teaches the specific strain (NRRL B-23318) but does not provide motivation to select it to improve pest resistance in plants. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because newly applied reference Blibech et al. characterizes 40 Bacillus isolates including Bacillus licheniformis which are entomopathogenic (abstract). Blibech teaches that Bacillus-based biological control agents are widely known as safe alternatives to chemical pesticides for control of insect pests (page 72, 1.Introduction). Furthermore, four different isolates of Bacillus licheniformis were found to increase insect mortality of pests on olive trees (Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, selecting the specific strain (NRRL B-23318) is not innovative since various isolates of Bacillus licheniformis were already known before the time of filing to have insecticidal effects when applied to plants.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights