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 .
The affidavit by Liping Diao filed 9/12/2025 is acknowledged and fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant does not include an Information Disclosure Statement. The listed and cited reference(s) in the specification, is/are not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Status of claims and specification
Applicant’s response filed 9/12/2025 has been entered.
The specification was amended 9/12/by the applicant, adding paras [0205]-[0208], including disclosed another name of instant rice.
Claims 9-10, 15 had/have been canceled.
In summary, claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-20 are pending and examined in this office action.
All previous objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment and/or upon further consideration. See “Response to Arguments” at the end of office action.
The following rejections are repeated, modified and/or added for the reasons of record as set forth in the last Office action of 3/18/2025, and/or necessitated by the applicant’s amendments. The applicant’s arguments filed 9/12/2025 have been thoroughly considered but are not deemed fully persuasive.
Definition of “essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics”
in the specification
According to the specification, in the Definitions ([0066]), “Essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics. A plant having all the physiological and morphological characteristics of the hybrid or cultivar, except for the characteristics derived from the converted gene”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Lacking written description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant Specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S. Code § 112(a) because it does not provide a description sufficient to conduct an examination, including search of the prior art, nor does it provide enough description to be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.
In the amended specification of 9/12/2025 ([0205]-[0208]), “Hybrid Rice RT23L401 was bred by crossing a female parental line A ("Parent A") and male parental line B ("Parent B"). Hybrid Rice RT23L401 has essentially all physiological and morphological characteristics of Parent A and Parent B as listed in Table 1.
Hybrid Rice RT23L401 is the filial generation F1 product of crossing parental lines A and B. Parental lines A and B are homozygous. They have been self-pollinated through a number of generations and are determined to be uniform and stable.
Hybrid Rice RT23L401 has been commercialized in the US as RT7302. Since 2019, Hybrid Rice RT23L401 has been tested under experimental conditions in more than 764 tests throughout the rice-growing regions of the US.
No other hybrid rice was produced by the same method and using the same original parental lines of Hybrid Rice RT23L401 at the time of filing of the present application”.
Note: Thus, RT7302 is another name of instant RT23L401, but the parent lines are still missing.
MPEP 2163 (I) states that “…. a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").” and
states “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
In the instant application, a full examination cannot be conducted because the applicant failed to provide the parent lines and breeding history for the instantly claimed plant variety. The applicant is claiming a seed and a plant of hybrid rice “RT23L401”, a new rice plant. A plant variety is defined and described by both its genetics (breeding history particularly the parent line(s)) and its traits. In the instant application, the applicant has only provided a description of the plant traits as seen in the specification (Table 1 in [0033]). The instant specification does not describe the breeding history, particularly the parent line(s), of the claimed rice “RT23L401”. In another word, the instant application is silent or incomplete as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety.
The criticality of a breeding history in assessing the intellectual property rights of a plant is well recognized in the field of plant breeding. With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”. Other bodies that grant intellectual property protection for plant varieties require breeding information to evaluate whether protection should be granted to new varieties. A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection” by the USDA reference to Exhibit A). Additionally, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30). While the USPTO, USDA, and UPOV have different laws governing intellectual property rights, all recognize that a breeding history is an essential part of adequate description of the plant sought to be protected.
The breeding history is also necessary to aid in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in plants where genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety. Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety. (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) and Ex Parte McGowen- Board Decision in Application 14/996,093). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement.
Furthermore, a breeding history particularly parent lines is essential to search siblings of instant plant to determine if there is/are any double patenting(s).
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table (for example, Table 1 in [0033]) is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species.
In the art, Haun et al (The Composition and Origins of Genomic Variation among Individuals of the Soybean Reference Cultivar Williams. Plant Physiology. P645-655, 2011) teach that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false (P645, Left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation. (p645, right column; P646, left column).
Grobkinsky et al (Plant phenomics and the need for physiological phenotyping across scales to narrow the genotype-to-phenotype knowledge gap. Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 66, No. 18 pp. 5429–5440, 2015) teach that environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar (p5430, last 2 paras; p5431, whole page). However, the genetic structure (genotype) is the major determinant of the phenotype of a plant (p5431, fig 2).
Particularly in rice variety plants, Li et al (Joint analysis of phenotype-effect-generation identifies loci associated with grain quality traits in rice hybrids. Nature Communication, p1-9, 2022) recently teach that male and female parents have suggested additive genetic effects and critical roles in rice breeding (p2, right col, 3rd para), and that genomic heritability is strongly correlated to phenotypes of a hybrid rice variety (p6, Fig 4).
Therefore, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
To overcome this rejection, the applicant must amend the specification/drawing to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant variety or cultivar. When identifying the breeding history, the applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant variety. For example, if the applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, the applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, the applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, the applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e. grandparents).
The applicant is also reminded that she or he has a duty to disclose information material to patentability. The applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant variety). This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chlapecka et al of University of Missouri (2022 Missouri Rice Planting Date & Cultivar Trials, p1-16, 2022). Chlapecka et al or University of Missouri is not part of the RiceTec Inc.
Claim 1 is drawn to a hybrid rice seed RT23L401.
Claim 2 is drawn to a rice plant, or a part thereof, produced by growing the seed of claim 1.
Claim 3 is drawn to pollen or an ovule of the plant of claim 2.
According to the amended specification of 9/12/2025 ([0207]), “Hybrid Rice RT23L401 has been commercialized in the US as RT7302. Since 2019, Hybrid Rice RT23L401 has been tested under experimental conditions in more than 764 tests throughout the rice-growing regions of the US”.
Thus, RT7302 is another name of instant RT23L401. And the applicant admitted that it has been commercialized.
Chlapecka et al disclosed rice plant RT7302/RT23L401 in rice cultivar trials 2022 (Tables in pages 3, 5-16).
Seeds are required to grow RT7302/RT23L401 and perform the trials.
Pollens are inherent parts of RT7302/RT23L401.
Therefore, Chlapecka et al teach all of the claim limitations, and anticipate the claims.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by University of Arkansas (Arkansas Rice Performance Trials 2022, p1-15, 2022). University of Arkansas is not part of the RiceTec Inc.
Claims 1-3 have been analyzed above.
As analyzed above, RT7302 is another name of instant RT23L401. And the applicant admitted that it has been commercialized.
University of Arkansas disclosed rice plant RT7302/RT23L401 in Arkansas Rice Performance Trials 2022 (Tables in pages 3-4, 11-12, 14-15).
University of Arkansas teaches planting rice seeds including that of RT7302/RT23L401 (page 1, left col, 3rd para, right col, 1st para).
Pollens are inherent parts of RT7302/RT23L401.
Therefore, University of Arkansas teach all of the claim limitations, and anticipate the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-8, 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over each of Chlapecka et al and University and Arkansas, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Re et al (US Patent 10674689, granted and published 6/9/2020).
Claims 1-3 and the teachings of Chlapecka et al or University and Arkansas have been analyzed above.
Chlapecka et al teach testing the yield of RT7302/RT23L401 (Tables in pages 3, 5-16).
University of Arkansas also teaches and demonstrated testing the yield of RT7302/RT23L401 (Tables in pages 3-4, 11-12, 14-15).
Thus, Chlapecka et al or University of Arkansas teach the advantage of RT7302/RT23L401 and making and using thereof.
Chlapecka et al or University of Arkansas do not explicitly teach the subject matters of tissue culture, protoplast and regenerated plant thereof, and the methods of using the seeds and/or plant of RT7302/RT23L401, the claim limitations of dependent claims 4-8, 11-14, 16-20.
Re et al teach the subject matters of tissue culture, protoplast and regenerated plant thereof, and the methods of using the seeds and plants (claims 5-18), teaching the limitation of dependent claims 4-8, 11-14, 16-20.
An invention would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art if any teaching, suggestion or motivation in prior art leading the one to combine the teaching(s) or suggestion(s) of the cited references to arrive the claimed invention.
In this case, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chlapecka et al or University of Arkansas, such that the invention of Chlapecka et al or University of Arkansas includes producing tissue culture, protoplast and regenerated plant thereof, and methods of using the seeds and/or plant of RT7302/RT23L401 to add more beneficial traits, as taught by Re et al. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because RT7302/RT23L401 was not only disclosed and commercially available, but also had been tested for yields by Chlapecka et al and University of Arkansas. The expectation of success would have been high, because the RT23L401 had been disclosed and commercially available, and the exact methods of making the tissue culture, protoplast and regenerated plant thereof, and the methods of using the seeds and plants of a rice cultivar had been taught by Re et al.
Therefore, the dependent claims would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art.
Remarks
The breeding history and parental lines of instant rice RT23L401 are missing in the instant specification. When such breeding history and parental lines of instant rice RT23L401 become available (See the 112a rejection above), the examiner will perform further search.
Response to Arguments
The amended specification of 9/12/2025 disclosed another name of instant rice ([0207]) that was never disclosed or claimed by the applicant. Accordingly, new art rejections are made. Nevertheless, brief responses are provided below:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) regarding deposit
The rejection is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s argument of 9/12/2025 (p6, last para) and the affidavit by Liping Diao filed 9/12/2025. Deposit is intended to meet all of the requirements of the Budapest Treaty and 37 C.F.R. § 1.801-1.809 is deemed included. A deposit of the claimed Hybrid Rice RT23L401 was made with the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) in accordance with the Budapest Treaty.
Additional rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) to claims 9, 10, and 15 for written description
Claims 9, 10, and 15 have been canceled by the applicant, rendering this rejection moot.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lacking written description/parent lines and breeding history
Before going to each argument, the examiner would emphasize the following:
According to MPEP 2161 I (a), IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The three requirements, written description, enablement and best mode are separate and distinct from each other.
According to MPEP 2163 I, “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.
MPEP 2163 (I) states that “…. a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description….”.
The criticality of a breeding history in assessing the intellectual property rights of a plant is well recognized in the field of plant breeding. MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”. Other bodies that grant intellectual property protection for plant varieties require breeding information to evaluate whether protection should be granted to new varieties. A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection” by the USDA reference to Exhibit A). Additionally, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30). While the USPTO, USDA, and UPOV have different laws governing intellectual property rights, all recognize that a breeding history is an essential part of adequate description of the plant sought to be protected.
A full examination cannot be conducted because the applicant failed to provide the parent lines and breeding history for the instantly claimed plant variety.
The breeding history is also necessary to aid in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in plants where genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Therefore, a breeding history including parent lines is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
Note: for example, in this particular case, the original specification and claims did not disclose another name of instant rice RT23L401. In the amendment of 9/12/2025 ([0207]), such other name is disclosed (RT7302). The examiner is able to conduct further search, and found prior art to make additional rejections. If the parent lines are disclosed, the examiner can conduct even further search, and find prior art, to make even more additional art and/or double patenting rejections.
The applicant argues that while Applicant does not acquiesce to or agree with the Examiner's position, in an effort to move prosecution forward, Applicant submits concurrently herewith an amended specification to include a detailed breeding methodology and history of claimed hybrid rice RT23L401. See Amended Specification at [0205]-[0208].
The argument is fully considered but not deemed persuasive. Note: in the amendment, RT7302 is another name of instant RT23L401, but the parent lines are still missing.
As analyzed above, the examiner is able to conduct further search regarding the other name of instant RT23L401, and found prior art to make additional rejections. If the parent lines are disclosed, the examiner can conduct even further search, and find prior art, to make even more additional art and/or double patenting rejections.
The applicant continues to argue that RiceTec is the owner of more than 30 patents and patent applications on hybrid rice plants, inbred rice lines, and rice cultivars dating back since 1994. Never during the prosecution of these patents has the Office ever requested that RiceTec amend the specification to disclose the identity of the exact parental lines for purposes of demonstrating written description of a hybrid line.
In fact, the identity of at least one of the parental lines in the pending application is a trade secret, which is highly proprietary confidential information which by definition cannot be revealed in a public disclosure since it would then reveal this trade secret to competitors. Mandatory disclosure of valuable trade secrets could discourage RiceTec's inventors from seeking patent protection, opting instead to rely solely on trade secret protection to maintain RiceTec's competitive advantage.…….
Trade secret law and patent law have co-existed in this country for over one hundred years. Each has its particular role to play, and the operation of one does not take away from the need for the other.…….
Trade secret law promotes the sharing of knowledge, and the efficient operation of industry; it permits the individual inventor to reap the rewards of his labor by contracting with a company large enough to develop and exploit it.
The Office's basis for requesting such information is one based on a pending rejection for written description. But the touchstone of written description is whether the POSA would understand that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention.….
In fact, a sufficient written description does not even require that the disclosure contain "either examples or an actual reduction to practice" …….
Here, there can be no question that the inventors were in possession of the claimed hybrid line, which is fully reduced to practice in a working example as being deposited as PTA-127535. The parental lines are not claimed as part of the invention and applicant can see no reason why the parental lines, which are RiceTec's trade secret, need to be disclosed to the public in order to satisfy a showing a possession of the claimed hybrid rice lines.
Indeed, this is further confirmed by In re Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., PGR2024-00023, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2024) which provides that for plant patents, the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are satisfied by the combination of phenotypic information, (which is already disclosed in Table 1 of the specification), breeding history (as provided in the amended specification), and the seed deposit (as provided in the 37 CFR §§1.801-1.809 Declaration and ATCC receipt of the deposit). Clearly, In re Inari rejects the notion that disclosure of sensitive trade secret of parental lines is required to show written description of the claimed hybrid lines.
Moreover, the Office has established extensive rules under MPEP §724 regarding safeguarding Trade Secret, Proprietary, and Protective Order materials that have been submitted to the Office so that these materials can only be viewed by the Examiner and not be publicly disclosed. See e.g. MPEP §724.02 Method of Submitting Trade Secret, Proprietary, and/or Protective Order Materials [R-01.2024] (clear labels on sealed envelopes stating ""TRADE SECRET MATERIAL NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC. TO BE OPENED ONLY BY EXAMINER OR OTHER AUTHORIZED U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE EMPLOYEE; DO NOT SCAN; In re Application of Application No."). Requiring the disclosure of RiceTec's trade secret information as part of the publicly disclosed patent specification would clearly violate both the spirit and letter of these rules.
The arguments are fully considered but not deemed persuasive.
The office has determined that the top-secret rules are still important rules, but do not apply to the breeding history and parent lines of the plant cases. As analyzed by the examiner, a breeding history particularly parent lines provides a description of the genetic background/structure of a plant, which distinguishes a particular plant from other plants. Without such, examiners cannot conduct complete searches, and patent infringement and/or double patenting can happen.
Again, in this particular case, the examiner is able to conduct further search regarding the other name of instant RT23L401, and found prior art to make additional rejections. If the parent lines are disclosed, the examiner can conduct even further search, and find prior art, to make even more additional art and/or double patenting rejections.
Regarding the argument that a sufficient written description does not even require that the disclosure contain "either examples or an actual reduction to practice", the argument is not relevant to the particular case, nor to the requirement of breeding history and parent lines. Disclosing breeding history and parent lines describes the genetic structure of a particular plant and distinguishes a particular plant from other plants.
In summary, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
To overcome this rejection, the applicant must amend the specification/drawing to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant variety or cultivar. When identifying the breeding history, the applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant variety. For example, if the applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, the applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, the applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, the applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e. grandparents).
The applicant is also reminded that she or he has a duty to disclose information material to patentability. The applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant variety). This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The 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). The 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0311. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, Shubo (Joe) Zhou can be reached on 571-272-0724. 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.
/Wayne Zhong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662