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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 05/26/2026, in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 10-12, 19 and 21-25 are pending of which claims 10-12 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025.
Claims 19 and 21-25 are being examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2026 is being considered by the examiner. The signed IDS form is attached with the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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. This rejection is maintained due to arguments filed on 06/24/2026.
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.
Claims 24-25 are 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). This rejection is maintained with slight modifications due to arguments filed on 06/24/2026.
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). Suslow also teaches “Calcium hypochlorite is the most common source of chlorine used for disinfecting
produce and produce process water” (see top of page 3).
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 and calcium hypochlorite postharvest because Suslow teaches that this is chlorination of surfaces of plants is viewed as a way to minimize the transmission of pathogens.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 05/26/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon 103 rejections as set forth in the last Office action because: The applicant compares different species of Bacillus and not different strains, which would be comparing subclasses of the same species. The applicant’s invention itself is not being argued ineffective and this evidence describes activities that may be unexpected, however given the scope of the claims and the prior art the invention would have been made obvious. The applicant argues that the prior art recognizes that different strains of B. velezensis have variability between other strains, including strain-specific gene clusters responsible for metabolite production and biological activity. The applicant believes it is this teaching that supports the unpredictability of their own work. Different strains of B. velezensis would be expected to have varying degrees of differences with the same properties because they are indeed of the same species and so expecting the B. velezensis of the prior art to exert the broadly claimed properties of prolonging shelf life of a plant or the post-harvest quality of a plant, given that the art teaches the same species to exert excellent antibacterial properties against Staphyloccous spp. and that the genus is known to reduce pathogens post-harvest, would be expected at least with a reasonable expectation of success to be able to inhibit Staphyloccocus spp. and thus prolong shelf life, even if in some cases less effectively than other strains. The same properties would be expected in other strains. It would be unexpected if one strain did not possess similar properties as the same species. It would not be unexpected for two strains of the same species to have similar properties at varying degrees due to varying amounts/numbers of metabolite production. If however a strain produced a wildly different metabolite which conveyed some different property, then that would be cause for some unexpected result and even potentially reclassification of the species as described in the above rejection and prior art.
The applicant argues that the applicant’s declaration shows some unexpected results. The applicant compares their invention to a wildly used and available strain of Bacillus subtilis, strain QST 713 used in the product Serenade®. This data, previously pointed out, compares two different species, not merely two different strains from the same species. The applicant argues that the species claimed performed better on multiple different endpoints when compared to the Serenade®, specifically in reducing total galleries in Tuta absoluta infestation, greater disease reduction with Botrytis cinerea infection and disease severity with Oidium neolycopersici. It would be suggested to tailor the claims to the specific properties rather than the broadly claimed limitations as it might be unpredictable that the prior arts species would have those same effects. For instance, the prior art relied upon does not mention having an effect on such species. The applicant argues that the data provided shows that strains within Bacillus velezensis are not functionally interchangeable, however the applicant’s data does not appear to suggest such evidence because the applicant is comparing different species of the Genus Bacillus and not different strains of the species Bacillus velezensis as being argued. The applicant is comparing Bacillus subtillis and Bacillus thuringiensis from commercial insecticide BioT Plus and QST 713 strain of Bacillus subtillis used in Serenade® as can be appreciated from the applicant’s own recognition (see page 2 at top of declaration).
Conclusion
Currently 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 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 BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights