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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/24/2025.
Claims 19 and 21-24 are being examined on the merits.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon Hyeong Seo et. al. (KR2021-0158159A), Muhammad Fazel Rabbee et. al. (From IDS dated 11/14/2023, Bacillus velezensis: A Valuable Member of Bioactive Molecules within Plant Microbiomes, Molecules, March 16, 2019; 24(6):1046), and Yossi Cohen and Omri Sasi (WO2019012541A1), hereinafter Cohen.
Seo teaches “the present invention relates to a novel Bacillus velezensis NST6 strain, a culture solution thereof, a supernatant thereof, an extract thereof, a fraction thereof or a compound isolated therefrom, and a use thereof. A novel strain Bacillus velegensis NST6 strain according to the present invention, a culture medium thereof, supernatant thereof, extract thereof, fraction thereof, or a basilomycin D analog, which is a compound isolated therefrom, according to the present invention exhibits excellent antibacterial activity against a pathogen, in particular, Staphylococcus spp. Thus, the same can be usefully used for the purpose of preventing, improving, or treating microbial infections in the field of antibacterial agents for plants/crops that require antibacterial efficacy, pharmaceuticals, health functional foods, and cosmetics, and can be usefully used for the purpose of preventing contamination in the field of quasi-drugs” (see abstract).
Seo teaches “In the present invention, the term "extract" refers to a result obtained by extracting a culture medium of Bacillus velegensis NST6 or a supernatant thereof. The extract is not limited thereto, as long as it can exhibit antibacterial activity, and may include an extract, a dilution thereof, a concentrate, a dried product obtained by drying the extract, a prepared product thereof, or a purified product thereof” (see page 3, last para.).
Seo teaches wherein the composition formulation can be sprays (see page 5, para. 13, bottom).
Seo does not particularly teach that the method is for prolonging the post-harvest quality or the shelf life of the plant or the bacteria having the nucleic acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 20.
Cohen teaches of compositions for reducing the growth of pathogens and/or a formation of pathogenic biofilm in/on a substance the composition comprising: effective amounts of Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus lichenijormis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, the effective amounts are configured to reduce growth of pathogens and/or a formation of a pathogenic biofilm in/on a substance (see claim 1). Wherein the substance is pre-harvested and/or post- harvested crops (see claim 2) and wherein the crops are plants (see claim 3).
Rabbee teaches “Bacillus velezensis is an aerobic, gram-positive, endospore-forming bacterium that promotes plant growth. Numerous strains of this species have been reported to suppress the growth of microbial pathogens, including bacteria, fungi, and nematodes. Based on recent phylogenetic analysis, several Bacillus species have been reclassified as B. velezensis. However, this information has yet to be integrated into a well-organized resource. Genomic analysis has revealed that B. velezensis possesses strain-specific clusters of genes related to the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites, which play significant roles in both pathogen suppression and plant growth promotion. More specifically, B. velezensis exhibits a high genetic capacity for synthesizing cyclic lipopeptides (i.e., surfactin, bacillomycin-D, fengycin, and bacillibactin) and polyketides (i.e., macrolactin, bacillaene, and difficidin). Secondary metabolites produced by B. velezensis can also trigger induced systemic resistance in plants, a process by which plants defend themselves against recurrent attacks by virulent microorganisms. This is the first study to integrate previously published information about the Bacillus species, newly reclassified as B. velezensis, and their beneficial metabolites (i.e., siderophore, bacteriocins, and volatile organic compounds)” (see abstract).
Rabbee teaches that “recently, different strains of B. velezensis, which is a typical PGPR, have received considerable attention. For example, living spores of B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42, now reclassified as a strain of B. velezensis, have been formulated into the commercially available bio-inoculant” (see 3rd para. of introduction).
Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date to use a purified Bacillus velezensis species composition for prolonging the post-harvest life of plants because Cohen teaches that Bacillus species are known for having such a property and teaches particularly that Bacillus amyloliquefaciens can be one of those species which can be used in such a treatment. Rabbee teaches that B. amyloliquefaciens has been reclassified as B. velezensis and so persons having ordinary skill could look to each of Seo, Rabbee and Cohen to realize that this particular species contains many beneficial antibacterial components which are known to prolong the post-harvest quality life of plants. For instance Seo teaches that B. velezensis contains the antimicrobial basilomycin D which can inhibit Staphylococcus growth.
Although the exact nucleic acid sequence may not have been known at the time it would have been obvious to select any particular strain of B. velezensis and expect the bacterial species to exert similar beneficial effects based on the relied upon art. Rabbee specifically teaches that B. velezensis possesses strain-specific clusters of genes related to the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites, which play significant roles in both pathogen suppression and plant growth promotion, therefore trying a new strain of B. velezensis to see if the activity is greater than a previous strain is well within the purview of any skilled artisan.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon Hyeong Seo et. al. (KR2021-0158159A), Muhammad Fazel Rabbee et. al. (Bacillus velezensis: A Valuable Member of Bioactive Molecules within Plant Microbiomes, Molecules, March 16, 2019; 24(6):1046), and Yossi Cohen and Omri Sasi (WO2019012541A1) as applied to claims 19, 21-23 above, and further in view of Trevor Suslow (Postharvest Chlorination, Basic Properties and Key Points for Effective Disinfection, University of California, Div of Agricultural and Natural Resources, 8003, 1997).
Seo, Cohen and Rabbee teach the instant method however are silent on contacting the plant with chlorine.
Suslow’s general disclosure is a report on postharvest chlorination.
Sulsow teaches “Postharvest handling of many vegetables and fruits usually involves the use of flumes, water dump tanks, spray washers, or hydrocoolers. Most postharvest processes recirculate used water (process water) to conserve water and energy. Dirt, organic matter, and disease-causing pathogens can accumulate in process water during bin dumping, hydrocooling, and flume recirculation.
Disinfection is the treatment of process water to inactivate or destroy pathogenic bacteria, fungi, viruses, cysts, and other microorganisms. The goal of disinfection is to prevent the transfer of these organisms from process water to produce and from one produce item to another during postharvest handling, increasing the likelihood that the produce is microbiologically safe for human consumption.
Disinfection may employ chemicals such as chlorine, iodine, ozone, or peroxide, or it may use physical processes such as microfiltration or ultraviolet illumination. Disinfection is part of an overall sanitation and safety management program. Chlorination of process water is one of the primary elements of a properly managed postharvest sanitation program”
“Chlorination alone is not a sanitation program—it is best viewed as a way to minimize the transmission of pathogens from infested produce or debris to noninfested surfaces such as harvest or process cuts, wounds, or natural plant surface openings” (see page 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date to contact the plants with chlorine postharvest because Suslow teaches that this is chlorination of surfaces of plants is viewed as a way to minimize the transmission of pathogens.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMAN Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655