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 III, claim 231, and the species phospholipase, in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 228 links inventions I-XVI. Claims 228-237, 239, 242-243, 246-247, 251-254 and 256 are pending. Claims 228 and 231 are examined. Claims 22 9-230, 232 -237, 239, 242-243, 246-247, 251-254 and 256 are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 231 is 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 231 is indefinite because it is unclear whether or how the alternatives listed are intended to limit the plant growth medium, since the transitional phrase “comprises” recited before the list of alternatives is understood to be open claim language that would allow for the inclusion of an unlimited number of additional substances. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 228 and 231 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0368627, published Dec. 24, 2015. Claim 228 as currently amended is drawn to a composition comprising a free phospholipase and a plant growth medium. The specification defines “plant growth medium” as any material that is capable of supporting the growth of a plant (page 9 paragraph [0045]). Claim 231 is drawn to the composition of claim 228, wherein the plant growth medium comprises soil, water, an aqueous solution, sand, gravel, a polysaccharide, mulch, compost, peat moss, straw, logs, clay, soybean meal, yeast extract, or a combination thereof. The specification does not further limit the substances recited in the list of alternatives for the plant growth medium. Further, it is unclear whether or how the alternatives listed are intended to limit the plant growth medium, as set forth above in the rejection of claim of claim 231 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Sun et al. teach a composition comprising a free phospholipase and water (paragraphs [0154], [0159]; Examples 3 and 4 at paragraphs [0167] to [0179] ; claim 9). Accordingly, Sun et al. anticipate claims 228 and 231. Claim(s) 228 and 231 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ortenzi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0299185, published Dec. 4, 2008. Claim 228 as currently amended is drawn to a composition comprising a free phospholipase and a plant growth medium. The specification defines “plant growth medium” as any material that is capable of supporting the growth of a plant (page 9 paragraph [0045]). Claim 231 is drawn to the composition of claim 228, wherein the plant growth medium comprises soil, water, an aqueous solution, sand, gravel, a polysaccharide, mulch, compost, peat moss, straw, logs, clay, soybean meal, yeast extract, or a combination thereof. The specification does not further limit the substances recited in the list of alternatives for the plant growth medium. Further, it is unclear whether or how the alternatives listed are intended to limit the plant growth medium, as set forth above in the rejection of claim of claim 231 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Ortenzi et al. teach a composition comprising a free phospholipase and a polysaccharide (claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 ). Accordingly, Ortenzi et al. anticipate claims 228 and 231. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 228 and 231 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 228 and 231 of copending Application No. 19/462,015 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 228 as currently amended is drawn to a composition comprising a free phospholipase and a plant growth medium. Claim 231 is drawn to the composition of claim 228, wherein the plant growth medium comprises soil, water, an aqueous solution, sand, gravel, a polysaccharide, mulch, compost, peat moss, straw, logs, clay, soybean meal, yeast extract, or a combination thereof. Claim 228 of the reference application is drawn to a composition comprising a free enzyme or expansin protein, wherein the enzyme is selected from a phospholipase, a lipase, a xylosidase , a lactonase, a mannanase , a pectinase, a chitosanase, a protease, a glucanase , an ACC deaminase, and combinations of any thereof, wherein: when the enzyme comprises a glucanase , the glucanase does not comprise a beta-1,3-glucanase, a xyloglucanase , or a lichenase ; and when the enzyme comprises a mannanase : (i) the composition further comprises a phospholipase or an acid phosphatase; (ii) the composition is a granular composition; or (iii) the composition further comprises a phospholipase or an acid phosphatase and is a granular composition; and a polymer, a surfactant, an agrochemical, a plant growth medium, or talc. Claim 231 of the reference application is drawn to the composition of claim 228, wherein the plant growth medium comprises soil, water, an aqueous solution, sand, gravel, a polysaccharide, mulch, compost, peat moss, straw, logs, clay, soybean meal, yeast extract, or a combination thereof. The claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other because the composition s claimed in claims 228 and 231 of the instant application are a narrow subset of species within the broad genus of compositions claimed in claims 228 and 231 of the reference application This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 228 and 231 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 228 and 231 of copending Application No. 19/462,018 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 228 as currently amended is drawn to a composition comprising a free phospholipase and a plant growth medium. Claim 231 is drawn to the composition of claim 228, wherein the plant growth medium comprises soil, water, an aqueous solution, sand, gravel, a polysaccharide, mulch, compost, peat moss, straw, logs, clay, soybean meal, yeast extract, or a combination thereof. Claim 228 of the reference application is drawn to a composition comprising a free enzyme or expansin protein, wherein the enzyme is selected from a phospholipase, a lipase, a xylosidase , a lactonase, a mannanase , a pectinase, a chitosanase, a protease, a glucanase , an ACC deaminase, and combinations of any thereof, wherein: when the enzyme comprises a glucanase , the glucanase does not comprise a beta-1,3-glucanase, a xyloglucanase , or a lichenase ; and when the enzyme comprises a mannanase : (i) the composition further comprises a phospholipase or an acid phosphatase; (ii) the composition is a granular composition; or (iii) the composition further comprises a phospholipase or an acid phosphatase and is a granular composition; and a polymer, a surfactant, an agrochemical, a plant growth medium, or talc. Claim 231 of the reference application is drawn to the composition of claim 228, wherein the plant growth medium comprises soil, water, an aqueous solution, sand, gravel, a polysaccharide, mulch, compost, peat moss, straw, logs, clay, soybean meal, yeast extract, or a combination thereof. The claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositions claimed in claims 228 and 231 of the instant application are a narrow subset of species within the broad genus of compositions claimed in claims 228 and 231 of the reference application This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Remarks Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CYNTHIA E COLLINS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0794 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30 am - 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /CYNTHIA E COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662