0DETAILED 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 claims filed 28November2023 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-25 are pending, original, and examined on the merits herein.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) [US provisional 63428286 filed 28November2022] is acknowledged. Claims 1-25 have an effective filing date of 28November2022.
Deposit
For the sake of a clear record, a Deposit Rejection would have been made but-for the information provided at ¶¶174-175 on page 43 of the specification. The statements there appear to be in compliance with 37 CFR §§ 1.801-1.809.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: further to the Written Description rejection regarding breeding history herein below, the specification is objected to because it does not sufficiently describe the breeding history of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears as though the word “of” within the following phrases is a typographical error and may be removed (at line 1) “producing of the plant of claim 1” and (line 2) “… vegetatively propagating of at least a part ….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15, 16, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: for consistency across the claims and technical accuracy, please amend these claims to refer to “when grown under the same environmental conditions” as in “… characteristics of the plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL when grown under the same environmental conditions ….” With respect to claim 16, in addition, please amend the claim to refer to “a plant of” as in “… characteristics of a plant of lettuce variety ….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: for consistency across the claims, please amend “morphological and physiological” within these claims to “physiological and morphological”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is confusing to say that “the target gene modifies a desired trait” at least because it is believed that the target gene would confer a desired trait and that the introduced mutation(s) therein would modify the desired trait. If consistent with the claims’ meaning, perhaps “modifies” in this claim may be changed to “confers”? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because it contains several informalities. For clarity, please consider the following (looking at claim 16 as a format guide):
A method of producing a lettuce plant derived from a[[the]] plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL[[claim 1]] comprising:
a. producing a progeny lettuce plant derived from lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL by crossing the plant of claim 1 with itself or with a second lettuce plant to produce a progeny lettuce plant, wherein a representative sample of seed of said lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL has been deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 44076;
b. crossing ….
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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 9 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 9 says it is directed toward a product (a lettuce plant) but then goes on to recite active method steps (“crossing” two plants). For at least this reason, it is not clear whether claim 9 is directed toward a product, method, or a product-by-process. Perhaps claim 9 may be amended to be directed toward a lettuce plant obtained/produced by the method of claim 8?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 is directed toward any seed that can produce the plant of claim 1 (i.e., any seed that can produce a plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL).
The specification only describes one seed structure (i.e., genomic structure) that can produce the plant of claim 1: the seed, a representative sample of which, has been deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 44076.
The prior art does not ameliorate the deficiencies of the specification because there appears to be no prior art which teaches a seed (i.e., a genomic structure) that can produce the plant of claim 1.
Without more from Applicant, a skilled artisan at the time the present invention was made would not reasonably believe Applicant was in possession of any seed (i.e., any genomic structure) which may produce the plant of claim 1—a skilled artisan would only believe Applicant was in possession of producing the plant of claim 1 with seed, a representative sample of which, has/will be deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 44076.
Please amend claim 2 to recite something like “A seed that produces the plant of claim 1, a representative sample of said seed having been deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 44076.”
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 is directed toward plants that have “all of the” characteristics/traits of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL (see Tables 1-4 of the specification) but that do not have any structural/genomic relationship with that of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL. Said another way, these claims encompass lettuce plants with any genomic structure and that, nonetheless, have all of the characteristics/traits of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL.
The specification only describes one seed structure (i.e., genomic structure) that is capable of causing all of the characteristics/traits of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL (i.e., those listed in Tables 1-4): the structure/genomic structure represented by the sample of seed deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 44076.
The prior art does not ameliorate the deficiencies of the specification because there appears to be no prior art which teaches a plant/part having the characteristics/traits listed in Tables 1-4 of this specification (i.e., the characteristics/traits of a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL).
Without more from Applicant, a skilled artisan at the time the present invention was made would not reasonably believe Applicant was in possession of a plant/part (i.e., any genomic structure) that has the characteristics/traits listed in Tables 1-4 of this specification (i.e., the characteristics/traits of a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL) that is anything other than a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL—a skilled artisan would only believe Applicant was in possession of obtaining the characteristics/traits listed in Tables 1-4 of this specification via the genomic structure represented by the sample of seed deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 44076.
Please amend claim 4 so that the claimed plants have the structure/genomic structure represented by the sample of seed deposited under Accession Number NCIMB 44076.
Claim 9 is 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.
This claim is directed toward any progeny plant obtained by crossing “a plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL with itself or another lettuce plant”—materially, the progeny plant being claimed is not limited to an F1 generation and there is otherwise no upper limit to the number of outcrosses that may be done so as to arrive at the claimed progeny plant.
The specification only describes plants/parts of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL and the characteristics/traits thereof (Tables 1-4).
A skilled artisan could not reasonably expect, with reasonable certainty, what the physiological and morphological characteristics of the claimed plants may be (= the claimed subject matter is so far removed from lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL that the characteristics of the claimed plants cannot be reasonably surmised). Said another way, the claimed subject matter is not tethered to novel starting materials (MPEP § 2116) by being limited to the F1 generation (in this case, by explicitly stating that the progeny is an “F1 progeny” or stating that the claimed progeny plant is obtained by no more than one outcross. These claims encompass any downstream plant having any physiological and morphological characteristics (= the characteristics of those downstream plants cannot be reasonably known until after they are actually made).
Put simply, a skilled artisan (in view of the specification and knowledge in the art) could not reasonably predict what characteristics/traits the claimed plants would have and, in that way, could not meaningfully distinguish the claimed plants from any other lettuce plant.
Without more information from Applicant, a skilled artisan at the time this application was filed would not reasonably recognize Applicant as being in possession of the full metes and bounds of these claims.
It would be remedial of this rejection to (I) explain (on the record, e.g., in remarks) how the specification (in view of the prior art) evidences possession of the full metes and bounds of the claimed plants; or (II) to amend the claims so that they only encompass plants/parts of the F1 generation produced from the novel starting material of a plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL (MPEP § 2116).
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 is directed to a lettuce plant produced by the method of claim 18 (a method of mutating a target gene within a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL). To be clear, the targeted gene mutagenesis of claim 18 appears to encompass gene editing (e.g., with CRISPR/Cas). To that end, claim 19 appears to encompass a lettuce plant produced by gene editing. Neither claim 18 nor claim 19 specify what target gene (or genes) are edited (i.e., there is no upper limit to the number of target genes that may be edited and none of the targeted genes are specifically identified with a name, structure, etc.).
While it is acknowledged that targeted gene mutagenesis is materially different than random mutagenesis (e.g., EMS (chemical) mutagenesis), the desired traits listed in claim 18 encompass traits which Applicant uses to characterize a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL (e.g., insect resistance, pest resistance, and/or disease resistance). Therefore, as written, the scope of claim 19 appears to encompass mutagenized/edited plants which may have very different characteristics/traits as compared to a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL.
The specification only describes the structure and characteristics/traits of one lettuce plant: that of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL (the structure/genomic structure being that represented by the seeds deposited as Accession Number NCIMB 44076, the characteristics/traits of one such plant being those listed in Tables 1-4 of the specification). One will note that certain resistance traits are characteristics which define a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL (see Tables 1-4 of the specification).
It is the Office’s position that a plant of claim 19 may have materially different characteristics/traits (e.g., resistance traits) as compared to those listed in Tables 1-4 of the specification and, therefore, one such plant would not be reasonably recognized as “a plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL”.
Put simply, a skilled artisan (in view of the specification and knowledge in the art) could not reasonably predict what characteristics/traits the claimed plants would have and, in that way, could not meaningfully distinguish the claimed plants from any other lettuce plant.
Without more information from Applicant, a skilled artisan at the time this application was filed would not reasonably recognize Applicant as being in possession of the full metes and bounds of these claims.
It would be remedial of this rejection to (I) explain (on the record, e.g., in remarks) how the specification (in view of the prior art) evidences possession of the full metes and bounds of the claimed plants; or (II) to amend claim 18 so that “at least one mutation is introduced into at least one target gene” and then amend claim 19 so that the claimed plant comprises “the at least one mutation and otherwise comprises all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of the plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL” (← so that it is clear that the plants within claim 19 maintain the characteristics/traits, and therefore the structure/genomic structure underlying those characteristics/traits, which define a plant/part of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL).
Claims 1-25 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.
These claims are directed toward plants/plant parts of a lettuce variety which Applicant refers to as “NUN 08261 LTL” and wherein a representative sample of NUN 08261 LTL seed has been deposited with Accession Number NCIMB 44076. Since seed of NUN 08261 LTL 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). Further to the But-For Deposit statement herein above, the Office believes (and agrees with Applicant) that a deposit in compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 of NUN 08261 LTL seed is needed for this application (37 CFR 1.809(a)). As acknowledged above, one such deposit has been made and appears to be compliant with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809.
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 lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL, but the current specification does not describe (b) the breeding history of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL.
To be clear, the only description provided by the specification is the following (from ¶¶172-173 on page 42 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 what generation the claimed inbred NUN 08261 LTL variety is (such as a second generation or fifth+ generation), or a description of the backcross steps used to generate the NUN 08261 LTL variety (such as number of backcrosses and with what variety/line).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
730
media_image1.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 1-25 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 lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL. Please note that the 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).
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 lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL and the originally filed specification contained both (i) a description of the morphological and physiological characteristics of a plant of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL (Tables 1-4 on pages 44-52 of the specification) and (ii) a reference to a deposit of representative “NUN 08261 LTL” 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).
Conclusion
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of these claims appears to be free from the prior art. The closest prior art may be identified as VAN ZEE (US2021/0100189 published 08April2021 by this Applicant regarding lettuce plants/parts of variety NUN 08222 LTL). However, plants of the lettuce variety NUN 08222 LTL are materially different than the presently claimed plants of lettuce variety NUN 08261 LTL in at least: longitudinal section shape, size of blisters, venation, and resistances (e.g., B1:1-40EU).
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.