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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s response filed 08/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 25 are amended. Claims 1-25 are pending. The terminal disclaimer of 08/29/2025 has been approved.
Claims 1-25 are examined.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The double patenting rejection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer. The written description rejection to claim 3 has been withdrawn upon further consideration.
All previous objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and/or upon further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over each of Fonseca et al (Fields Crops Research (2005) 94:114-125); Almeida et al (Brazilian Journal of Botany (2011), vol. 34 (4), pp. 493-497), Connor et al (Euphytica (1993), vol. 68, pp. 77-84), and Ishikawa et al (Seed Sci. & Technol (2005), 33, pp.742-752), in view of each of Volk (Technical guideline (2011) Ch. 25), Sugiyama et al (JP 2009040703) and Coonrod et al (US 6,146, 884 A). This rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the last Office action 05/01/2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited alone or in combination discloses or makes obvious a step of field conditioning pollen, field conditioning is used "to describe the process disclosed in this application of treating freshly collected pollen...to maintain or improve its viability, allowing for more successful pollen storage. .. . It is an immediate process that is conducted upon the gathering of the pollen [paragraph [0049]).” Applicant also argues claim 1 requires field conditioning conditions that include a relative humidity (RH) ranging from about 50% to about 100%; temperature ranging from about -10°C to about 10°C, and air pressure ranging from about 15 kPa to about 150 kPa, to produce field-conditioned pollen with enhanced pollen viability. These are not found persuasive because each of Fonseca et al and Almeida teach subjecting freshly collected maize pollen to a certain temperature and relative humidity, and determine pollen viability and moisture content. Fonseca et al teach collecting fresh maize pollen and subjecting the fresh pollen of a temperature of 4 0C and a relative humidity of 100% for a while, wherein the temperature and the relative humidity were monitored and pollen viability were measured. Table 1 and Fig. 4 of Fonseca et al show pollen moisture content and pollen viability data for 11 genotypes grown in the field. Almeida et al teach a method of preserving maize pollen under conditions comprising humidity of 20% and a temperature of 4oC, six different culture medium including calcium chloride as well as silica gel and hydrated calcium chloride as dehydration agents; and a storage at 4oC to preserve the high values of pollen viability of up to 30 days. Claim 1 requires a relative humidity (RH) ranging from about 50% to about 100% and an air pressure ranging from about 15 kPa to about 150 kPa, which include an ambient relative humidity (40% to 60%) and an ambient air pressure (101.3%). The limitations of “the pollen be hydrated to achieve a pollen moisture of about 40% to about 58% are not recited in claim 1 and dependents. In addition, pollen preservation conditions are not recited in claim 1, and claim 25 does not require subjecting the fresh pollen to field conditioning conditions. Applicant’s argument on page 5, 2nd full paragraph, makes it clear that “pollen field conditioning” is separate process from “pollen preservation conditioning”.
Applicant argues that Ishikhawa teach subjecting fresh pollen collected from flowering winter rye plants to constant relative humidity and temperature until a stable water content is reached, therefore does not render the claims obvious. This is not found persuasive because while different Poaceae plant species have different pollen preservation requirements, subjecting a certain relative humidity, air pressure and temperature to freshly collected pollen from a Poaceae plant to achieve a desired pollen moisture are the core limitations of the claimed invention. Ishikhawa et al is relied upon because it teaches collecting fresh pollen from flowering winter rye (a Poaceae) ; placing it in a constant RH chamber (ranging from 30% to 80%) set at 7oC (Figures 2-3); and determining pollen water content and viability, before and following equilibrium desiccation. Ishikhawa demonstrated that the longevity of rye pollen was better maintained when desiccation and storage were under RH of 56% at 7C (Table 1 and Figure 4). Applicant’s arguments that the highest seed moisture content was 21.6% is not found persuasive because Applicant’s own claims 2 and dependents recite pollen moisture content of 15% to 35% which falls within the teaching of Ishikhawa. In addition, the rejected claim 1 and dependents do not require a pollen moisture content of 40%-58%. Connor et al is relied upon because it teach the importance of determining optimum moisture levels to maintain pollen viability at low temperature for diverse pollen species.
Applicant argues that none of the cited secondary references of Volk, Sugiyama, and Coonrad cures the deficiencies of the primary references because none teaches field conditioning step and pollen moisture content of claim 25. These are not found persuasive because none of the rejected claims require both field conditioning steps and pollen moisture content of claim 25. 1) claim 1 and dependents do not require a pollen moisture content and claim 25 does not require field conditioning conditions.
Volk is relied upon because teaches methods of collecting and preserving pollen from different plant species including corn, pollen desiccation (dehydration) methods using low-humidity room temperature, or over salt (magnesium chloride or calcium nitrate) chambers that are maintained at relative humidity (RH) of about 30%, or over silica gel at room temperature, or vacuum drying, or rapid air-drying (for desiccation- sensitive species and freezing temperature tolerant). Regarding the temperature, Volk teaches that dry pollen of many species can be stored between 4oC and -20oC and remain viable from few days to a year, which is good for use in breeding programs; or the pollen is placed in cryovials for long-term storage in liquid nitrogen or liquid nitrogen vapor. Volk further teaches rehydration methods by placing open vials of pollen in environment with 100% humidity for 1 to 4 hours at room temperature. At the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6, Volk teach that high quality pollen dehydrated to an optimal moisture content and stored at low temperature has been shown to store for over 10 years. Volk suggests storing desiccated pollen in oxygen-free atmosphere to further improve longevity. Volk et al states that pollen preservation is important because it makes pollen available to breeders upon request and for research programs, allows for wide hybridization across seasonal and geographical limitations, and eliminates the requirement to synchronize flowering and pollen availability for use in crosses, and that availability of adequate amount of pollen will help increase pollination and yield.
Sugiyama et al is relied upon because it teach a pollen preservation method comprising collecting pollen from flowers, and preserving the pollen at a low temperature in a packaging bag in a vacuum state, or in a packaging bag filled with nitrogen gas or carbon dioxide gas.
Coonrad et al is relied upon because it teach method of preparing multiple pollen samples for cryogenic preservation using plurality of chambers connected to a vacuum manifold and an air manifold for venting interiors of the chambers to atmospheric air pressure and by maintaining a predetermined moisture content using vacuum pump to reduce the pressure inside the chambers containing the pollen. Therefore, given the extensive studies of maize pollen preservation in the art, one of skill in the art would be able to determine the specific atmospheric pressure and level and duration of air venting required for optimum moisture content including those listed in the claims for maize pollen, without unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of preserving maize pollen to maintain a desired moisture content by controlling the environment with a certain and relative humidity as taught by each of Fonseca et al and Almeida et al, the use of silica gel and a saturated salt solution as the dehydration step as taught by each of Almeida et al and Connor, and to modify that method by incorporating the pollen collecting step and other dehydration/desiccation techniques such as vacuum drying, air flow, or rehydration techniques, to increase longevity and viability of pollen for use in breeding programs as taught by each of Volks and Ishikawa and to further modify that method preserving the pollen at a low temperature by incorporating the step of in a packaging bag in a vacuum state, or in a packaging bag filled with nitrogen gas as taught by Sugiyama et al, to produce viable pollen with long longevity for use of plant breeding, transport and for storage as suggested by each of Almeida, Volk, and Conrad et al, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of skill in the art would be able to determine the optimum moisture content of a pollen by controlling environmental factors such as temperature, relative humidity, and air pressure as suggested by each of Fonesca et al and Volks. While the cited references do not explicitly teach 78% to 100% of nitrogen gas, Sugiyama et al teach packaging the pollen in a bag filled with nitrogen gas, and Volk suggest storing desiccated pollen in oxygen-free atmosphere to further improve longevity. One would have been motivated to promote methods of preserving pollen, given the need of large quantity of pollen with maximum potential longevity for use in plant breeding as suggested by each of Almeida et al, Volk and Conrad et al.
Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above and in the last office action, the invention as whole was a prima facie obvious.
To obviate the above rejection, Applicant may amend independent claims to recite the steps for pollen field conditioning, pollen preservation conditioning, and the pollen moisture content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2 and 4-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the last Office action 05/01/2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 of the response filed 08/29/2025 are not found persuasive for the following reasons: 1) the instant specification fails to describe a representative number of pollen species that the method described in the specification is applicable. The specification also fails to describe specific physiological, genotypic or morphological characteristics common to the genus of pollen species from the family Poaceae that can be preserved using the claimed methods. 2) The family of Poaceae includes non-cereal crops which are neither exemplified in the instant specification nor is there available studies regarding pollen viability. 3) It is known to one of skill in the art that pollens from different plant species differ in moisture content, viability and germination rate under different environmental conditions such temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, etc. However, the prior art provides limited studies on effects of the combination of temperature, relative humidity, and air pressure on the preservation and longevity of pollen from even maize, not to mention pollen from other members of Poaceae crop species. Therefore, the single method of preserving maize/rice pollen is not a representative of the claimed method encompassing any pollen from other Poaceae species. 4) Applicant points to no specific genotypic characteristics that distinguish and common to all members of the genus of pollen from Poaceae crops that can be preserved by the claimed methods. Therefore, the claimed method is so broad with respect to the pollen genotype from non-cereal crop and to the wide range of temperature, relative humidity and air pressure to achieve a wide range of pollen moisture content for optimum storage. 5) Applicant’s own working examples show that even genotypes from the same plant species (maize) respond differently to the same treatments. Therefore, the claimed method requires testing pollen grains of various genotypes from a large number of Poaceae crop species, in a wide range of temperatures, relative humidity, vacuum treatments, dehydration, positive/negative air flow, gases displacing oxygen, and pressures conditions as listed in the claims to identify what conditions would result in pollen moisture content that is optimum for long term storage.
Therefore, a pollen preservation method applicable to maize pollen or rice pollen is not necessarily applicable to pollen from all other Poaceae crops, given that the prior art provided limited studies on preservation and longevity of pollen from species other than maize/rice. Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above and in the last Office action, the claimed invention lacks adequate written description.
Remarks
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDINA AHMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-0797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 - 6:00.
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 ZHOU can be reached at 5712720724. 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.
MEDINA AHMED. IBRAHIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1662
/MEDINA A IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662