DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Withdrawn rejections
The rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of amendments made by Applicant.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in light of remarks made by Applicant and deposit receipt provided by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Missing Breeding History)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 20 was inadvertently omitted from the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/30/2025.
MPEP 2163 section (I) states “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’" Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612.” In this case, the nature of the invention claimed is the creation of a new lettuce cultivar “NUN 09197 LTL”. It is well established that a plant is defined by its phenotype (traits) and its genotype (breeding history). Applicant has not provided any information on the genotype of “NUN 09197 LTL” and thus fails to provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention. Specifically, the instant application is silent as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety.
Additionally, 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).
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).
Applicant’s arguments regarding missing breeding history
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that separate submission of the breeding history as a trade secret is sufficient to overcome the rejection.
This argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. The breeding history must be
included in an amendment to the specification so that it is accessible. Therefore, the submission in a separate, confidential filing does not overcome the rejection.
Regarding the legal basis of the written description rejection and the court’s/board’s interpretations, the best starting point for a written description analysis is the law itself. The first 10 words of 35 USC 112 (a) are critical.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. (emphasis added)
The strict interpretation of the law is clear: Applicant must provide in the specification a written description of the invention. The only question is what an “adequate written description” is. This is a fact-based inquiry done by the factfinder (i.e., the examiner) when analyzing the nature of the instant invention.
The Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant variety the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history). To support this finding of fact, the Office has cited other plant-related intellectual property organizations and relevant court cases dealing with plant varieties in which both the phenotype and genotype are analyzed. The Office did not cite these findings to clarify the law. They are solely to clarify the finding of fact, i.e., what is an adequate written description for the instant plant variety. Applicant’s arguments ask the Office to not consider the actual statute and base our decision solely on statements from court/board cases that do not directly decide what an adequate written description is for a plant variety.
The specification provides no information regarding the parents of the claimed plant. Knowledge of the parent plants is required for an understanding of the instant variety.
The references cited in the rejection are evidence regarding that question of fact regarding what is considered when describing plants. They are not cited for legal analysis. The references cited, including USDA and UPOV, establish that in the plant variety art, a breeding history is part of the description of a plant variety.
Applicant has not provided evidence saying that in the plant variety art the breeding history is not considered art of the description of a plant variety. Applicant has not rebutted the evidence provided in the rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R BYRNES whose telephone number is (571)270-3935. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID R BYRNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights