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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of species Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032 in the reply filed on August 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
As claim 8 is directed to a non-elected distinct species is thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-13 in conjunction with the elected species Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032 are examined on merits in the present Office action. This restriction is made Final.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
2. No drawings have been submitted in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed in the paper of 04/26/2024 is attached to the instant Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k). In the instant case, an elite Thlaspi variety of claim 1 falls within the scope of claim 3 as it fails to limit the scope of parent claims 1. It may be noted that elite Thlaspi variety of claim 1 is a plant and thus claim 3 fails to limit the scope of claim 1.
Claim 5 is objected for lacking article “A” before “Seed”. It is suggested to change “Seed” to ---A seed---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-7 read on a naturally occurring mutant and non-mutant Thlaspi plant growing in wild which has naturally reduced seedpod shatter trait, early maturity trait, lacking black seed trait, high fiber seed trait, increased lodging trait and/or any wild-type seed sinigrin content. Such naturally occurring mutant and non-mutant Thlaspi plant can be produced in nature as a result of naturally occurring mutation(s) and/or naturally occurring selection process present in the naturally occurring mutant or non-mutant Thlaspi plant. These naturally occurring mutations and/or selections naturally happen in a wild environment resulting naturally a genetic trait as instantly claimed and further cited above.
Additionally, it is important to note that instantly claimed seed or part of Thlaspi plant or also reads on wild-type seed because, given meiotic segregation during the formation of male and female gametes, and genetic reassortment and recombination following pollination leading to seed production, the claims broadly reads on wild type seed derived from a genetically modified plant.
Thus the claimed product has the same characteristics as those found naturally within a naturally occurring Thlaspi mutant plant cell, tissue culture, regenerable cells of a tissue culture, Thlaspi mutant plant or seed, derived thereof, or as cellular precursors thereof and therefore does not constitute patentable product. The instantly claimed invention reads on product of nature. This is not patent-eligible pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Association for Myriad: Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013), Alice Corp.: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014), Mayo: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs. Inc. (2012) and Bilski: Bilski v. Kappos (2010).
Thus, instantly claimed products have the same characteristics as those found naturally thereof and therefore do not constitute patentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
6. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite in its recitation “reduced” because the term "reduced” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the recitation “reduced” is unclear as it is not defined. The recitation lacks a comparative basis.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite in its recitation “early” because the term "early” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the recitation “early” is unclear as it is not defined. The recitation lacks a comparative basis.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite in its recitation “lacks the black seed trait, high fiber seed trait, increased lodging trait, wild-type seed sinigrin content, wild-type seed erucic acid content” because the recitations are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The recitations “high” fiber seed trait, “increased” lodging trait are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of these recitations is unclear as it is not defined. The recitations lack a comparative basis.
Dependent claims are also rejected because they fail to overcome the deficiencies of parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), deposit
The following is a quotation 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.
7. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Since the seed claimed is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a reproducible method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If a seed is not so obtainable or available, a deposit thereof may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The specification does not disclose a reproducible process to obtain the exact same seed in each occurrence and it is not apparent if such a seed is readily available to the public. If the deposit of the seed is made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating the seed have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the seed will be irrevocably, and without restriction or condition, released to the public upon the issuance of a patent would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. A minimum deposit of 625 (25 packets of 25 seeds each) seeds is considered sufficient in the ordinary case to assure availability through the period for which a deposit must be maintained.
If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number showing that
(a) during the pendency of the application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be tested (see 37 CFR 1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become unviable.
Applicant has NOT indicated that Applicant intends to deposit the seeds at the ATCC in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. Accordingly, Applicant needs to provide a signed statement indicating compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, the ATCC Accession No. and evidence of deposit to overcome this rejection. Compliance with this requirement may be held in abeyance until the application is otherwise in condition for an allowance.
In the instant case, it is noted that the specification only describes Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032, representative seeds of which are deposited under Accession Number 202210002 (see specification at paragraph [00201]). Even, the deposit statement at paragraph [00201] fails to state that all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent.
Furthermore, the specification does not provide deposit statement and associated NCMA accession number for the “Elite Thlaspi variety” as instantly claimed. The breadth of claims (in particular product claims) read on any Thlaspi variety having reduced seedpod shatter trait, early maturity trait, lacking black seed trait, high fiber seed trait, increased lodging trait or any wild-type seed sinigrin content. The specification fails to describe deposits of representative seeds from Elite Thlaspi variety.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), (Written Description)
8. Claims 17 and 9-13 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Federal Circuit has recently clarified the application of the written description requirement. The court stated that a written description of an invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name, of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court also concluded that "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not a description of that material." Id. Further, the court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, Patent Owner must describe a representative number of the species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to "visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus." Id.
Finally, the court held:
A description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or a recitation of structural features common to members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. Id.
See also MPEP Section 2163, page 174 of Chapter 2100 of the August 2005 version, column 1, bottom paragraph, where it is taught that
[T]he claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A biomolecule sequence described only by a functional characteristic, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, normally is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.
See also Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ 2d 1016 at 1021, (Fed. Cir. 1991) where it is taught that a gene is not reduced to practice until the inventor can define it by "its physical or chemical properties" (e.g. a DNA sequence).
Claims are broadly drawn to a an elite Thlaspi variety comprising a reduced seedpod shatter trait and/or early maturity trait of Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032, representative seed of Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032 having been deposited under NCMA Accession Number 202210002, or wherein the variety lacks the black seed trait, high fiber seed trait, increased lodging trait, wild-type seed sinigrin content, wild-type seed erucic acid content, and/or reduced yield trait of Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032, or a plant of the variety, or a part of the plant, wherein the part comprises a microspore, pollen, ovary, ovule, embryo sac, egg cell, cutting, root, stem, cell or protoplast, or seed of the plant of claim, or a tissue culture of regenerable cells or protoplasts from the plant, wherein the cells or protoplasts of the tissue culture are derived from a tissue comprising a leaf, pollen, embryo, cotyledon, hypocotyl, meristematic cell, root, root tip, anther, flower, seed, or stem, or a method for producing an elite Thlaspi plant variety comprising a reduced seedpod shatter trait and/or an early maturity trait, the method comprising: (a) crossing a plant of Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032, representative seed of Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032 having been deposited under NCMA Accession Number 202210002 with a second Thlaspi plant from a wild cultivar or an elite variety lacking the reduced seedpod shatter trait and/or an early maturity trait, to create population of progeny plants; (b) selecting from the progeny plants a plant with a reduced seedpod shatter and/or an early maturity trait; and (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) for a sufficient number of times so that an elite variety is created with the reduced seedpod shatter trait and/or an early maturity trait, or a method of producing a Thiaspi variety with reduced seed pod shattering and/or early maturity comprising: (a) obtaining a plant of Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032, representative seed of Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032 having been deposited under NCMA Accession Number 202210002; and (b) using the same as a source of breeding material in a plant breeding program, or a method of producing a commodity plant product comprising: (a) obtaining the plant of claim 3, or a plant part thereof; and (b) producing the commodity plant product from the plant or plant part thereof, wherein the commodity plant product is an oil, biodegradable plastic, lubricant, biofuel, food or feed product, medicinal product, or a combination thereof, or wherein a plant part is obtained, wherein the plant part is a seed, and wherein the commodity plant product is oil or biofuel, or wherein a plant part is obtained, wherein the plant part is a seed, and wherein the commodity plant product is a feed product.
The breadth of claims encompass a very large genus comprising unknown mutation(s) or genetic changes in Thlaspi plant resulting in an unknown genetic event which causes reduced seedpod shatter trait, early maturity trait, lacking black seed trait, high fiber seed trait, increased lodging trait and/or any wild-type seed sinigrin content.
Applicant’s broadly claimed genus encompasses a genus with unknown species whose structure and function relationship is unknown and not described.
The instant specification, however, only describes Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032, representative seeds of which are deposited under NCMA Accession Number 202210002 having some phenotypic characteristics as shown in Tables 1, see paragraphs [0092].
Applicant fails to describe structure of representative species of Applicant’s broadly claimed genus and thus their function is either unknown or unpredictable.
There is no description of the structure required for the recited function, and no description of the necessary and sufficient elements of functional activity of diverse species involved in obtaining the desired functional phenotype. Applicant’s broadly claimed genus encompasses structures whose function is unknown.
One of skill in the art would not recognize that Applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the genus in view of the disclosed species. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes that identify members of the genus, and because the genus is highly variant, species Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032, representative seeds of which are deposited under NCMA Accession Number 202210002 is insufficient to describe the claimed genus.
Accordingly, there is lack of adequate description to inform a skilled artisan that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description guidelines published Federal Register/Vol.66, No. 4/Friday, January 5, 2001/Notices; p. 1099-1111.
Given the claim breadth and lack of guidance as discussed above, the specification does not provide written description of the genus broadly claimed. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicants to have been in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Written Description- Lack of Breeding History)
9. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 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. 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).
In the instant application, a full examination cannot be conducted because applicant failed to provide the breeding history for the instantly claimed (i) An elite Thlaspi variety; and (ii) Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032. Specifically, in claim 1 applicant claims a new elite Thlaspi variety plant variety and Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032. A plant variety is defined by both its genetics (breeding history) and its traits. In the instant application, applicant has only provided a description of the plant traits as seen in the specification (see pages 45-48. The instant application is silent or incomplete as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed (i) An elite Thlaspi variety; and (ii) Thlaspi arvense cultivar 2032.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
10. Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marks et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0053458 A1, Published February 21, 2019).
Marks et al. disclose Thlaspi plant having reduced seedpod shatter trait. The reference further disclose a cell, seed, tissue culture of regenerable cells derived from plant tissues, such as leaf etc. See in particular, Examples 1-4, and material and methods at pages 11-14, Figures 1-18.
The property of early maturity trait and lacking the black seed trait, high fiber seed trait, increased lodging trait, wild-type seed sinigrin content, wild-type seed erucic acid content, or reduced yield trait as instantly claimed would inherent to the Thlaspi plant disclosed in the reference, unless Applicant provides evidence to the contrary.
It is important to note that this rejection has been made because “An elite Thlaspi variety” as instantly claimed reads on any Thlaspi plant.
Accordingly, Marks et al. anticipated the claimed invention.
11. Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ulmasov et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0082718 A1, Published March 21, 2019).
Ulmasov et al. disclose Thlaspi plant having reduced or low fiber trait. The reference further disclose a cell, seed, tissue culture of regenerable cells derived from plant tissues, such as leaf etc. See in particular, Examples 1-8, Tables 1-12, pages 20-29, Figures 1-6.
The property of early maturity trait and lacking the black seed trait, increased lodging trait, wild-type seed sinigrin content, wild-type seed erucic acid content, or reduced yield trait as instantly claimed would inherent to the Thlaspi plant disclosed in the reference, unless Applicant provides evidence to the contrary.
It is important to note that this rejection has been made because “An elite Thlaspi variety” as instantly claimed reads on any Thlaspi plant.
Accordingly, Ulmasov et al. anticipated the claimed invention.
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vinod Kumar whose telephone number is (571) 272-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad A. Abraham can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA).
/VINOD KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663