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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 remain objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “creating a heterozygous MiMe genetic material” appears to be indicate just that mutated genes are heterozygous but the introduction of the term “material” which is broad, hampers a clear understanding of the scope of the claim. Claim 1 recites in step 1 “screening lines with heterozygous at regulated loci” wherein it appears screening lines ---that are--- heterozygous at regulated loci is the intended meaning.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s urge that amending “material” to ---genetic material--- overcomes the claim objection. This is not persuasive because this language is still broad and confusing. Genetic material could be DNA, RNA, a cell, a tissue or a plant, but this is not compatible with the term “crossing” and it is not clear what the term “crossing” would mean with several of those options since only a sexual crossing with a full plant would seem to fit with the claims as currently written. This confusion permeates the claims with phrases such as “expanding reproduction of the homozygous MiMe genetic material” and “screening of a homozygous MiMe genetic material with genetic background recombination”. It is not understood in the plain meaning what “expanding” reproduction even means or if it is a duplicative term since reproduction naturally increases the genetic material. It is also not understood how one would screen MiMe genetic material given the discussion above with “genetic background recombination”. Given the context of the invention, the Examiner believes Applicant intends to be referencing a genetic backcross, however, the term “backcross” is not mentioned in the specification, and the Examiner does not believe amending to this phrase would avoid introducing New Matter.
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 1-2 and 4-10 remain 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 “crossing the heterozygous MiMe genetic material with a wild type plant”. It is not clear what the genetic material is, it could be DNA, RNA, proteins that help with scaffolding the chromosomes, chromosomes, replication DNA machinery, cells, tissues and finally plants. It is not clear how one would cross such material with a plant, other than wherein the material is a whole plant. This also applies to the phrase “self-breeding the heterozygous MiMe genetic material”.
Claim 1 recites “screening of a homozygous MiMe genetic material with genetic background recombination”. It is unclear what this phrase is limiting in terms of the method step, and it is unclear how one could screen with genetic background recombination.
Claims 2 and 4-10 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although Applicant has amended the claims to alter the wording that was responsible for the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 as being indefinite, the newly amended claims add language that is indefinite as stated above, and accordingly the claims are held as being indefinite for failing to distinctly and clearly point out the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments when taken together with the claim amendments have overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Mieulet et al.
The closest prior art, CN110029126, published 07/19/2019 teaches many of the features of the instant invention, including knocking out the PAIR1, REC8, OSD1 and MTL genes and breeding for polyploidy and heterosis as in the instant invention. Cao et al also mention evaluating tillers. However, Cao et al do not teach nor suggest adding an asexual propagation step to their method wherein the asexual propagation step is tillering bending, node culture or anther culture.
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 BRENT T PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Amjad Abraham can be reached at 5712707058. 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.
/BRENT T PAGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights