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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are examined herein.
The rejection to Claims 1-7, 9-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to satisfy the enablement requirement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s filings.
The rejection to Claims 1-7, 9-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 9,648,816 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s filings.
The rejection to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 12-13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 4-8, 18-19 and 24 of prior U.S. Patent No. 9,648,816 or, in the alternative on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,816 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s filings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7, 9-23 remain 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 that 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
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 to conduct an examination, including search of the prior art
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.").
The instant specification fails to satisfy the written description because it does not provide enough description to be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.
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).
In the instant application, a full examination cannot be conducted. In claims 1-23, Applicant claims a new onion plant line. A plant line, variety or cultivar is defined by both its genetics (breeding history) and its traits. In the instant application, the specification only provides a description of the plant traits (Table 1). The instant specification is silent as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant line.
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” (USDA, “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pvpo/application-help/apply, accessed 1 May 2023). 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 (UPOV, 2017, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, see 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, 2020). 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, trait tables are insufficient to differentiate plant lines by themselves. A breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed to adequately 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 to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant onion line. 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 onion line. 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 any 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(s) 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that the written description requirement is provided by the deposit, such that they do not have to provide a breeding history, citing Ex Parte C, Enzo, Inari, in re Lundak, and a letter from the USPTO director (Remarks p. 7-14).
This is not found persuasive.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments on the legal basis of the written description rejection and the court’s/board’s interpretations, the best starting point for a written description analysis is the law itself. The first 10 words of 35 USC 112(a) are critical.
(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. (emphasis added)
The strict interpretation of the law is clear: Applicant must provide in the specification a written description of the invention. The only question is what an “adequate written description” is. This is a fact-based inquiry done by the factfinder (i.e., the examiner) when analyzing the nature of the instant invention.
The references cited in the rejection are evidence regarding that question of fact regarding what is considered when describing plants. They are not cited for legal analysis. The references cited, including USDA and UPOV, establish that in the plant variety art, a breeding history is part of the description of a plant variety.
Applicant has not provided evidence saying that in the plant variety art the breeding history is not considered part of the description of a plant variety. Applicant has not rebutted the evidence provided in the rejection.
The Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant variety the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history). To support this finding of fact, the Office has cited other plant-related intellectual property organizations and relevant court cases dealing with plant varieties in which both the phenotype and genotype are analyzed. The Office did not cite these findings to clarify the law. They are solely to clarify the finding of fact, i.e., what is an adequate written description for the instant plant variety. Applicant’s arguments ask the Office to not consider the actual statute and base our decision solely on statements from court/board cases that do not directly decide what an adequate written description is for a plant variety.
Lastly, 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).
If Applicant has issues with the guidance in the MPEP, arguing with the examiner applying that guidance is not the solution, as examiners have no role the decision to include that guidance in the MPEP.
Applicant urges that a 1.105 request is the proper mechanism to provide information useful to examination (Remarks p. 15).
This is not found persuasive.
MPEP 704.11(a) provides a list of Examples of Information Reasonably Required by a Request for Information under 37 CFR 1.105(a), as does 37 CFR 1.105(a)(1)(i)-(viii) itself. A description of what is being claimed in not in those lists.
The proper place for a description of what is being claimed is in the specification, as set forth in 35 USC 112(a).
Phenotype and/or parental information provided only as a trade secret does not inform the public. Once that information is expunged in response to a petition to expunge, the public has no way to access that information and that description of the claimed invention.
Applicant provided the name for the parent of the instant plant in the IDS transmittal letter filed 14 December 2023. IDS transmittal letters are also not part of the specification.
While Applicant urges that the deposit provides all the description necessary to meet the requirements of written description, that is not the case. The deposit is necessary but not sufficient.
If a deposit were all that is needed, then a phenotype table that includes traits affected by the environment would not be necessary. However, a plant described only by a deposit cannot be examined; the patent office does not have the facilities to grow up the claimed plant and all onion plants in the art to compare their phenotypes and do a genetic analysis on the claimed plant and plants with the same phenotype or a phenotype that makes obvious the claimed plant to see if the claimed plant is genetically related to the prior art plant.
There are over 25 patents on onion varieties and about that number of patent applications that have been published but not yet issued. The number of patents on onion varieties will continue to grow. If these onion plants were only described by deposit, one needing to know the phenotype and genotype of any or all of the plants, as would a onion breeder, would need to grow each up to evaluate phenotype and perform a genetic analysis to evaluate genotype. Performing a phenotypic and genetic analysis on all these onion plants would be an undue burden on each onion breeder. It would also be a burden on the patent holder, as the deposited seed would rapidly be depleted and would need frequent replacement. Lastly, as deposits do not need to be maintained into perpetuity, the genetic information provided therein would no longer be available if there is a 5-year gap after the last request, shutting later breeders out of the information therein. Words describing the phenotype and parents of an onion plant do not shut future inventors out of a description of a prior art onion plant.
Similarly, merely providing in the specification arbitrary names for the parents of an onion plant and hiding the publicly known names for them is not useful to someone that is not the Applicant, and does not describe an invention to the examiner or the public.
Phenotypic and parental (genetic) information and a deposit are all necessary parts of the description of an onion plant.
Conclusion
No claims are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A LOGSDON whose telephone number is (571)270-0282. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5:00 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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. 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.
/CHARLES LOGSDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights