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
The amendments filed 25November2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 3-4, 7, 11, 19, 21-22, 25-26, 28, 33-34, 36-40, 42-45 were previously canceled, claims 20, 46, and 50 are now canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-18, 23-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 41, 47-49, 51-52 are pending and examined on the merits herein. Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 13-14, 16-18, 24, 27, 29-32, 41, 47, 49, 51 are currently amended. Claim 23 was previously presented. Claims 5, 10, 12, 15, 35, 48, and 52 are original.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) [US provisional 63385492 filed 30November2022] is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-18, 23-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 41, 47-49, 51-52 maintain an effective filing date of 30November2022.
Withdrawn Objections and/or Rejections
Objections and/or rejections made of record in the nonfinal office action dated 29July2025 that are not otherwise discussed herein are withdrawn. In particular:
RE ¶¶ 5-11: The objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims;
RE ¶ 12: The Deposit Rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Remarks 25November2025 and accompanying amendment to the specification:
PNG
media_image1.png
504
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE ¶¶ 13-15: The Indefiniteness rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims (which are commensurate to those suggested by the Office);
RE ¶ 17: The Written Description rejection of claims 13-14, 16-18, 20, 27, 30-31 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims (which are commensurate to those suggested by the Office);
RE ¶ 18: The Written Description rejection of claim 51 is withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto (which are commensurate to those suggested by the Office);
RE ¶ 19: The Utility rejection of claim 46 is withdrawn in view of claim 46 being canceled;
RE ¶ 20: The Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Remarks 25November2025 and the amendment to the specification, both of which state that the B28 pennycress variety was generated following “at least five generations of modified bulk breeding and selection”. Following “at least five generations” of selective breeding, a skilled artisan would recognize plants/parts of the B28 pennycress variety being materially different than a wild type plant/part (including its wild type parent plant/part). To be clear, the statement that wild type parents were obtained “from two distinct counties in Iowa” is not sufficient to overcome this SME rejection because it is not clear from this statement whether the two counties are adjacent to each other and whether the parent plants were simply selected from each side of the county line.;
and
RE ¶ 21: Further to the SME rejection being withdrawn (see above), the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 46, and 47 is withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure REMAINS objected to because of the following informalities: further to the Written Description (Breeding History) rejection herein below, the specification is objected to because it does not sufficiently describe the breeding history of pennycress variety B28.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments 25November2025:
Applicant’s amendments to the specification regarding Breeding History are acknowledged and appreciated.
However, in this particular case and in view of the questions regarding Obvious-type Double Patenting (ODP) over plants/parts of pennycress variety B3 (the subject of Applicant’s co-pending Appl. No. 18507719, Attny. Dkt. No. P13700US01), the amendment to the specification lacks certain details. The Office maintains its recommendation that (1) the two parent varieties be identified by a name/identifier OR, because the parent plants in this application are wild type plants, (2) that the counties from which they were obtained be identified by name. It I believed that either (1) or (2) will provide evidence to distinguish this B28 variety from other varieties (such as the B3 variety, see the ODP rejection maintained herein below), with names/identifiers of the parent plants being more useful in that regard (now and in the future).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-18, 23-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 41, 47-49, 51-52 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 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.
↓Copied from the Nonfinal 29July2025, Please see the Response to Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments↓
These claims are directed toward plants/plant parts of a pennycress variety which Applicant refers to as “B28” and wherein a representative sample of B28 seed has been deposited with NCMA as Accession Number 202208006. Since seed of B28 is essential to the claimed subject matter, such seed must be (1) obtainable by a reproducible method set forth in the specification or (2) otherwise be readily available to the public. If such seed is neither (1) nor (2); then (3) a deposit of such seed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Because the present specification does not (1) describe a reproducible process to obtain B28 seed and (2) the B28 seed does not appear to be otherwise publicly available; the Office believes that (3) a deposit in compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 of B28 seed is needed for this application (37 CFR 1.809(a)). To that end, please see the Deposit Rejection hereinabove.
However, simply depositing seed with an acceptable depository is not enough for compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809: the specification must also provide “a description of the deposited material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination” (37 CFR § 1.809(d)(3)).
MPEP § 2163(I) explains that:
“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted." [emphasis added, citing Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,876 (August 22, 1989), hereinafter “Final Deposit Rules”]
"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." [emphasis added, citing Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,880 (August 22, 1989)]
“Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. 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.” [emphasis added, citing In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and the Final Deposit Rules 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.” [emphasis added, citing the Final Deposit Rules at 34,880].
The MPEP also provides practical advice for determining what level of detail is sufficient to adequately describe a product: enough details so that a skilled artisan may distinguish the product from other products. In particular, and in the case of the product being a chemical compound, MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(i) explains that an Applicant must provide “identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials” [emphasis added, citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406] and, said another way, that “the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials” [emphasis added, citing citing Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200 at 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1991)]. Looking back at the quoted passages from MPEP 2163(I), this makes sense—a third party cannot “[resolve] questions of infringement” and an examiner cannot “compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art” if the specification does not provide enough information about the product (i.e., “identifying characteristics”) so that it can be distinguished from other products (e.g., distinguished from the third party’s products or products in the prior art including Applicant’s own other products).
It is recognized in this art that to distinguish a plant of one variety from a plant of a second variety, a skilled artisan needs a description of both (a) the morphological and physiological characteristics (“traits”) of each variety and (b) the breeding history (also referred to as “parentage” or “pedigree”) of each variety.1
The current specification describes (a) the morphological and physiological characteristics of a plant/part of pennycress variety B28, but the current specification does not describe (b) the breeding history of pennycress variety B28.
To be clear, the only description provided by the specification is the following (from ¶34 on page 10 of the specification). One will note that material information is not given (such as identifying details about either parent plant, e.g. a name/identification number or even the location from which each of the “wild-collected” parents was obtained, or important information about the claimed B28 variety such as whether B28 is the first-generation progeny, whether B28 is an inbred variety, and/or whether plants grown from deposited B28 seed are uniform for the traits listed in Table 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
87
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Without more information from Applicant, the current specification does not provide enough information to distinguish a plant/part of the claimed variety from a plant/part of a second variety (MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(i)). Therefore, the Office believes that the current specification does not provide a description that can “aid in the resolution of questions of infringement” or otherwise meet the guidance set forth in MPEP § 2163(I). In conclusion, the Office believes that the current specification does not provide “a description of the deposited material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination” as is required by 37 CFR § 1.809(d)(3).
Because all of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12, 14-18, 20, 23-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 41, 46-52 require the deposited seed, and because the current specification does not evidence compliance with 37 CFR § 1.809(d)(3), these claims are rejected for a lack of Written Description.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification (or drawings and specification) to provide the breeding history used to develop pennycress variety B28. As noted herein above, the current breeding history information is deficient as to as least identifying details about either parent plant (e.g. a name/identification number or even the location from which each of the “wild-collected” parents was obtained) and important information about the claimed B28 variety (including whether B28 is the first-generation progeny, whether B28 is an inbred variety, and/or whether plants grown from deposited B28 seed are uniform for the traits listed in Table 1). Please note that the breeding history description, at a minimum, should specifically identify the parent plants (e.g., by a name such as a variety name in a patent document or other identification number such as a deposit accession number, germplasm identification number, or Plant Variety Protection number) and provide some context regarding the crosses/backcrosses and selection steps that were conducted therefrom to arrive at the claimed variety. Some acceptable breeding history disclosures may be found at, for example: the specification for Appl. No. 175870362 at ¶196 on page 60 of the specification; the specification for Appl. No. 149960933 at line 15 on page 5 to line 4 on page 7 of the specification; the specification for Appl. No. 152660524 at line 13 on page 10 to line 20 on page 11 of the specification; and the specification for Appl. No. 174554325 at ¶¶121-124 on page 45 of the specification. These are just examples, Applicant should please tailor the language provided in response to this rejection to the particulars of this application’s subject matter. Please note that with respect to unpublished parent plants (that have not and will not be publicly available), the breeding history within the specification should make their unpublished status clear and then the specification need not provide any other names/identifiers (as in the wheat XW13W Appl. No. 15266052, the specification explains that at least one of the parents is “a proprietary variety not commercially available” and thereafter refers to plants of that line as “proprietary variety”; another example, which also happens to be in the context of wheat, is that for wheat 6PEMZ97B Appl. No. 17455432 where the breeding history gives identifying names/numbers for two unpublished parents and then explicitly states that they have “not been publicly disclosed”). Please take note that “unpublished” is different than “proprietary” (which denotes ownership)—in these scenarios, it is material that the specification describes unpublished parent plants as just that (not publicly available). In the case of plants that do not have a name/identifier (e.g., a wild type parent plant), the breeding history may describe where the plant was obtained (e.g., in the case of a wild type parent plant, the region of the world from which it was obtained or the depository from which its seed/germplasm was obtained) and material traits of that plant or selection criteria used to arrive at the claimed progeny plant therefrom (i.e., so that it is clear from the breeding history how the claimed progeny differs from the unnamed/unidentified parent plant; which is especially important when the unnamed/unidentified parent plant is a wild type plant). Candidly, as evidenced by the Double Patenting rejection herein below, the Office highly recommends giving even unpublished plants a name/identifier so that there is no question about whether two+ plants/parts have the same genomic composition (because it would be clear that they have disparate breeding histories) and, in that way, lessen the likelihood that Double Patenting questions arise.
Applicant should please note that the remedial amendment to the specification (or drawings and specification) is/will not be considered New Matter at least because the breeding history is inherent to the plants/parts of pennycress variety B28 and the originally filed specification contained both (i) a description of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a plant of pennycress variety B28 (Tables 1 on page 11 as well as trait comparison Table 3 on pages 13-16 of the specification) and (ii) a reference to a deposit of representative “B28” seed.
Please see the Objection to the Specification herein above that accompanies this Written Description rejection.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded of their “Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith” (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 and MPEP § 2001).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments 25November2025:
Applicant’s amendments to the specification regarding Breeding History are acknowledged and appreciated. The specification is amended as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
164
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As an initial matter, the explanation that the parent plants are “not commercially available” is acceptable and in this particular scenario (the parent plants being wild), preferable over saying something like “not publicly available” (← which would seed to contradict the fact that the parent plants exist in the wild). Furthermore, this language has been used in other applications (wheat) and was cited by the Office as exemplary acceptable language (see the rejection of record as copied herein above).
As amended, the breeding history lacks the details necessary to distinguish a plant of the B28 variety from a plant of a different variety which is evidenced by the ODP rejection below (over plants/parts of pennycress variety B3 (the subject of Applicant’s co-pending Appl. No. 18507719, Attny. Dkt. No. P13700US01). The deficiencies are that Applicant has not provided either (1) names/identifiers for each of the two parent varieties OR (2) the names of the two counties from which the parent plants were obtained. Without either (1) or (2) in this case, a plant of the B28 variety cannot be meaningfully distinguished from a plant of a different variety (such as a plant of the B3 variety).
To be clear, the Office has asked for (1) a name/identifier of each parent plant because that information (assuming it is used consistently across publications) suggests the underlying genomic structure/sequence of that plant. In this case of unnamed/unidentified wild type parent plants, the Office is alternatively asking for (2) the Iowa counties to be given as a means to distinguish between parent plants (which requires the assumption that plants obtained from non-adjacent locations, such as from distinct counties, will have distinct genomic structures/sequences). In this case, it is believed that either (1) or (2) will provide evidence to distinguish a plant of this B28 variety from a plant of another variety (such as a plant from the B3 variety, as discussed in the ODP rejection maintained herein below). Applicant is in the best position to know what is going on here—if the parents of this application’s B28 variety were obtained from the same counties as the parents of the B3 variety, then Applicant will want to provide other information by which those parents may be distinguished (assuming that the parents are, in fact, structurally distinct).
To be clear, and further to the Office’s comments of record: it is highly recommended that names/identifiers be provided for each parent (and such names/identifiers be used consistently across publications) because that information (plant names/identifiers) will minimize issues (such as ODP and anticipation) going forward (in this application as well as future applications). As Applicant no doubt knows, and ignoring third party activities, the Office will make and maintain a rejection unless or until there is sufficient evidence of record to show it is moot—Applicant can proactively avoid certain rejections from the Office (such as ODP and anticipation) by simply providing a breeding history that names/identifies the parent plants of a newly generated variety/line.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-18, 23-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 41, 47-49, 51-52 REMAIN provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-18, 23-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 41, 47-49, 51-52 of copending Application No. 18507719 (Attny Dkt. No. P13700US01, published as US20240172620). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For context, this application regards plants/parts of pennycress variety B28 whereas 18507719 regards plants/parts of pennycress variety B3. Applicant has amended the breeding histories for both B28 and B3 plants/parts:
PNG
media_image4.png
169
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
171
640
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Materially, as shown in Table 3 of this specification (pages 13-16), the plants/parts of B28 and B3 varieties are nearly identical (they differ by an insignificant degree of variation).
In the Remarks dated 25November2025 (page 17), Applicant asserts that “B28 and B3 have at least one different parent” and that this fact is evidenced by the parent plants for each (at Tables 3, respectively) having different characteristics. This is not persuasive because, just as for comparing the characteristics of B28 plants to those of B3 plants, the characteristics listed for the unnamed/unidentified parent plants “A” and “B” of the B28 variety are nearly identical to those listed for the parent plants “A” and “B” of the B3 variety (they differ by an insignificant degree of variation).
Therefore, without more information from Applicant, it appears as though the plants/parts of variety B28 have the same genomic composition (same parents?) and phenotypic properties as plants/parts of variety B3. It follows that the claimed subject matter here is not patentably distinct from that of application 18507719.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Further to what is said elsewhere herein, the Office recommends providing either (1) names/identifiers for each of the two parent varieties used to generate B28 OR (2) the names of the two counties from which those parent plants were obtained. Please note that Applicant seems to have some parent names/identifiers now (as evidenced by the amendment to the specification 21November2025 in co-pending application 18507719), and according to Applicant’s Remarks here (25November2025), at least one of those parents is the same as was used here to generate the B28 variety.
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 Rebecca STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-4:30.
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 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.
/REBECCA STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
1 See Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., PGR2024-00023, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2024, 38 total pages) wherein the Board compared both the (a) morphological and physiological characteristics and (b) breeding histories for each of the patented variety and for the prior art variety to determine whether the patented claims were obvious;
See also Ex Parte C 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992, 11 total pages) where the Board agreed with Appellant as to Written Description (but the Examiner as to obviousness) and found that because the specification provided both (a) a description of “the characteristics of the seed and plant including flower color, plant type, maturity group, bacterial resistance, nematode resistance, etc.” and (b) “names the parent plants used to obtain the claimed cross”, there was enough information to identify the (claimed) plant variety “X” and distinguish it from other [varieties] [sic];
Compare US20230148529 (Appl. No. 18053336) and US Pat. No. 12010967 (Appl. No. 17455432) which are directed toward patentably indistinct siblings where the fact that the claimed varieties are siblings is only discernable by having (b) identical breeding histories in-hand because the sibling varieties have (a) disparate morphological and physiological characteristics) (i.e., it would not have been possible to identify the other variety based on just (a) morphological and physiological characteristics—breeding histories were needed);
See also MPEP § 1605 which say (albeit regarding Plant Patents) that:
“[t]The specification should include a complete detailed description of the plant and the characteristics thereof that distinguish the same over related known varieties, and its antecedents, expressed in botanical terms in the general form followed in standard botanical textbooks or publications dealing with the varieties of the kind of plant involved (evergreen tree, dahlia plant, rose plant, apple tree, etc.), rather than a mere broad nonbotanical characterization such as commonly found in nursery or seed catalogs. The specification should also include the origin or parentage and the genus and species designation of the plant variety sought to be patented.”;
and
See also the US Department of Agriculture’s requirements for Plant Variety Protection at parts 3 and 5 which require applicant’s to describe both the (b) “origin and breeding history” and the (a) “morphological, physiological, and other characteristics” of the variety (respectively) (“PVPO Program Requirements” United States Department of Agriculture (5 total pages), available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection/pvpo-requirements; last visited 28March2025).
2 US20230240220 (soybean), now US Pat. No. 12317841.
3 US20160249543 (cotton).
4 US Pat. No. 9943057 (wheat).
5 US20230148508 (wheat), now US Pat. No. 12010967.