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 response on 10/28/2025 is noted.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 14-18, 20-25, and 27-32 are currently pending.
Claims 6, 10, 12-13, 19, and 26 are cancelled.
Claims 8 and 14 are currently amended.
Evaluation of issues from the 5/28/2025 non-final office action.
Claim objections of 6, 10, 19, and 32
Issue is resolved
Claims 6, 9, and 10 were cancelled by applicant.
For claim 32 applicant has asserted and the office will accept applicant’s assertion that the plant of claim 32 is not the same as the plant of claim 2 because claim 32 must be grown directly from the deposited seeds.
Objection of claim 26
Issue is resolved as applicant has cancelled claim 26
Objection of claim 8
Issue is resolved due to applicant’s amendment of claim 8
Objection of claim 14
Issue is resolved due to applicant’s amendment of claim 14.
Figure 3 drawing objection
Issue is resolved due to applicant’s amendment of figure 3.
Enablement rejection of claims 1-32
Issue is resolved as applicant has satisfied the pending enablement issue with the following statement:
PNG
media_image1.png
237
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
112b rejections of claims 7, 11-13, and 20.
112b is moot for claims 12-13ue to applicant’s cancellation of those claims.
For claims 7, 11, and 20
Examiner will maintain the 112b rejection
Applicant dd not specifically argue against offices position, rather there is just a general allegation that the claims are definite.
Applicant fails to respond to the specific issue of whether “combination” language in the claim required all of the listed traits or just a subset of them. Nor did applicant respond to the specific issue with the comma for claim 7. Examiner will maintain these 112b rejections in view of applicants failure to specifically address the 112b issues put forth by the office.
112d rejections of claims 12-15 and 32
112d for claims 12-13 are rendered moot by applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
112d for claims 14-15 are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment of claim 14.
112d for claim 32 is withdrawn as applicant has asserted and the office will accept applicant’s assertion that the plant of claim 32 is not the same as the plant of claim 2 because claim 32 must be grown directly from the deposited seeds.
Written Description rejection for Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 14-18, 20-25, and 27-32
Examiner Note: Applicant has submitted the breeding history of the instantly claimed plant (41-CR2393 RZ) via a confidential filing pursuant to MPEP 724. This submission does not rectify the written description issue as the breeding history is part of the minimum written description needed to describe a new variety.
Applicant should amend the specification with the breeding history in the confidential filing as it is essential to the description of the instantly claimed plant variety.
Applicant makes numerous legal arguments as to why a deposit satisfies written description and why the breeding history does not have to be in the specification. These legal arguments are not in alignment with the offices position. Only Ex parte C deals with a new plant variety all the other cases cited by applicant refer to genetic information from a deposit. The office is not solely asking for breeding history to aid with an office search, it is because a review of the new plant variety development in the public domain shows that the breeding history is part of the minimum written description needed to evaluate a new plant variety. There is no need for a full legal analysis because the law is clear: 35 USC 112 (a) states that “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. This means that whatever is necessary for written description must be in the specification and not outside the specification in a confidential filing. In evaluating written description, the threshold question is what is “an adequate written description”. This is question of fact that is evaluated by the factfinder (examiner). MPEP 2163.04 clearly states that “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).”
The instant invention is a new lettuce variety (41-CR2393 RZ). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new lettuce variety. In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzed how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concluded that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety has a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history). In reviewing applicant’s specification there is a phenotypic description as is seen in figure 3. However, there is no accompanying breeding history in the specification. Because the specification lacks a breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety the applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
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”, USDA, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, downloaded 05/01/2023, (U)).
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 (UPOV, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, April 6, 2017, See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30 (V)).
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) (W) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020 (X)). 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.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun et al. (Plant Physiology, Feb. 2011, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655 (Y)) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (p. 645, 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 (p. 645, right column and p. 646, left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al., J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, 2015 (Z), p. 5430, left column, 1st full paragraph, and right column, 2nd full paragraph). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed to adequately describe a newly developed plant.
The above factual evidence provides a reasonable basis that a breeding history is necessary written description. With this information the examiner has met the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 USC 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary to the adequate description of a plant.
Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
MPEP 2163 (I) states “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.").”
MPEP 2163(I) 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).
The breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete 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 complete 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.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification/drawing to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant cultivar. Basically, applicant should amendment the specification with the breeding history they have provided to the office in confidential response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Indefiniteness)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7, 11, 20 are indefinite as it claims a regenerated/progeny plant that purports to still be on Variety 41-CR2393 RZ and then states that the regenerated/progeny plant only needs to have a combination of traits including those listed in claim 7 and 11 or modified traits. It is unclear if the combination means you only need a few of the traits listed or all the traits listed. Moreover, it is further unclear if the listing of traits in the claims are the only traits that need to be maintained from 41-CR2393 RZ or if all the traits need to be maintained. As 41-CR2393 RZ already has the traits listed in claim 7/11 it is unclear why only these traits are called out.
Claim 7 is further indefinite in the use of a comma between Fusarium and Fol:1. It is unclear if resistance to any Fusarium is being claimed or just to a specific race. In the same claim the applicant does not have a comma between downy mildew and its race and aphid and its biotype. A suggested correction would be to remove the comma similarly to how the resistances are represented for down mildew and aphid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Missing Breeding History)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 14-18, 20-25, and 27-32 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.
MPEP 2163 section (I) states “"Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’" Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612.” In this case, the nature of the invention claimed is the creation of a new lettuce variety “41-CR2393 RZ”. It is well established that a plant is defined by its phenotype (traits) and its genotype (breeding history). Applicant has not provided detailed information on the genotype of “41-CR2393 RZ” and thus fails to provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention. While, Figure 2, does purport to provide a breeding history, there is no information as to any of the parent plants which would provide information about the genotype.
Additionally, 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.
MPEP 2163 (I) states “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.").”
MPEP 2163(I) 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).
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.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. HAUN teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (See Haun Page 645 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. (See Haun Page 645 right column and Page 646 left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (See Großkinsky page 5430 left column 1st full paragraph and right column 2nd full paragraph). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, applicant must amend the specification/drawing to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant variety or cultivar. When identifying the breeding history, applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant variety. For example, if applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, 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, 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, applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e. grandparents).
Applicant is also reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMJAD A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7058. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 830 AM to 500 PM.
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 A Abraham can be reached at 571-270-7058. 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.
AMJAD A. ABRAHAM
SPE AU 1663
Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663