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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 04/22/2026, in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 18-29 are pending of which claims 18-22 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 23 and 24-29 are being examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2026 and 01/19/2026 is being considered by the examiner. The signed IDS form is attached with the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manuel José Gandarillas Infante (WO2012045189A2) and Alexandros Yiannikouris et. al. (Alkali Extraction of Beta-D-Glucans from Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cell Wall and Study of Their Adsorptive Properties toward Zearalenone, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2004, 52, 3666-3673). This is a new rejection based on the amendments filed on 04/22/2026.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6 and 23, Infante discloses a composition of biostimulants originating from two biological sources: one constituted by chitosan, which provides the carbon or energy for plant development; and the other constituted by a partial hydrolysate of Saccharomyces cerevisiae from industrial beer fermentation, which is constituted by proteins, oligoproteins, nucleic acids, amino acids, vitamins and cofactors, for proper development of the plant. The aqueous mixture of both types of nutrients contains 5% chitosan and 5% biological nutrients. The use of this composition leads to an increase in the size of plants, in the number of flowers and in the number of fruits in Capsicum chinense L.-productive agricultural crops (see abstract). Infante discloses contacting the roots of the plants with the composition (see page 2, 2nd para. from bottom and see claims 7-8). Here the additional agricultural compound described in instant claim 6 can be chitosan.
Infante does not specifically teach wherein the method uses an alkaline hydrolysate.
Yiannikouris teaches of alkali extraction of Beta-D-Glucans from Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell walls (see abstract) and teaches “Yeast cell walls were hydrolyzed with 2NH2SO4 at 100 °C for 4 h according to the method of Dallies et al. (22). The extraction method was adapted from those of Fleet (23) and Catley (24), who both used NaOH for 6h at 75 °C for extraction under nitrogen conditions. In our study, cell walls were fractionated by alkali extraction with 1 M NaOH and 0.5% of NaBH4 for 24h at 37°C under agitation. The process became optimal when the [cell wall/NaOH] (w/v) ratio approached 2. The suspension was centrifuged (10000g for 5 min), and the supernatant and pellet fractions were separated” (see material and methods, page 3667, right column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to persons having skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an alkaline hydrolysate method as instantly claimed because this is one known way to hydrolyze Saccharomyces cerevisiae to obtain the active components described in Infante’s invention for a method of increasing the biomass of plants. Infante already teaches of hydrolysates of Saccharomyces for increasing plant biomass and so one would only need to search for methods in which to hydrolyze the yeast to obtain those active components. Yiannikouris teaches of alkaline extraction and so optimizing the pH to be above 8 is obvious as this is would indeed be an alkaline environment. Optimizing the temperatures to be above 45 degrees Celsius is also obvious as Yiannikouris teaches temperatures above this amount.
Claim 7-8, 13, 25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manuel José Gandarillas Infante (WO2012045189A2) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6 and 23-24 above, and further in view of Pat J. Unkefer et. al. (WO2001054500A1). This is a new rejection based on the amendments filed on 04/22/2026.
Infante teaches the claimed method steps however is silent on simultaneously contacting the plant (parts) with proline.
Unkefer teaches a composition comprising proline or a mixture thereof in an amount effective to increase the rate of growth of a plant over that for the wild type plant (see claim 1).
Unkefer teaches “increasing the concentration of prolines, such as 2-hydroxy-5-oxoproline, in the foliar portions of plants has been shown to cause an increase in carbon dioxide fixation, growth rate, dry weight, nutritional value (amino acids), nodulation and nitrogen fixation, photosynthetically derived chemical energy, and resistance to insect pests over the same properties for wild type plants. This can be accomplished in four ways: 1) the application of a solution of the proline directly to the foliar portions of the plant by spraying these portions; 2) applying a solution of the proline to the plant roots;” (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to persons having skill in the art before the effective filing date to simultaneously apply proline to the plant (parts) as described by Unkefer because this will help to increase plant growth and help with resistance to insects. It would have also been obvious to optimize the proline and hydrolysate to be within the same instantly claimed amounts, percentages, ranges because this is well within the purview of any skilled artisan especially given the prior art as these are the effective components of the invention.
Claims 9, 11-12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manuel José Gandarillas Infante (WO2012045189A2) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6 and 23-24 above, and further in view of Jenkins (From IDS, WO2017142425A1). This is a new rejection based on the amendments filed on 04/22/2026.
Infante teaches the claimed method steps however is silent on the abiotic stress being hail or wherein the vine and/or plant part is a part of a vine.
Jenkins discloses “a method for enhancing plant tolerance to stress comprising a step of:
applying, to at least one plant or part thereof, a composition comprising: a mixture of lysed cellular components from at least one strain of bacteria which has been grown in a growth media to at least about 106 cfu/ml and/or at least one strain of yeast which have been grown in a growth media to at least about 105 cfu/ml. The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the stress is abiotic stress.” (see claims 1-2).
“The microorganisms may produce a range of growth promoting compounds including cytokinins, betaines, oligopeptides, and related compounds. Lysing as noted above breaks cell walls and releases cell wall and internal cell compounds” (see page 9).
Jenkins discloses the genera of yeast as Saccharomyces (see claim 11).
Jenkins discloses that “specifically, plant tolerance to abiotic stress, temperature extremes and transplantation are enhanced by application of the composition” (see abstract).
Jenkins discloses the abiotic stress is water stress (see claim 3).
Jenkins discloses “the plant bio-stimulant composition may be applied in combination with urea and/or other agricultural compounds” (see Summary of invention, 1st para.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the method on vines (parts) and for abiotic stress such as hail because Jenkins teaches that the method is effective for plants and vines are plants thus persons reading Jenkins’ teachings would have surely applied the method to a vine or vine parts. Additionally Jenkins teaches wherein abiotic stresses can be both temperature and water and thus one would also extrapolate that hail is an abiotic stress due to both temperature differences having an effect on water. When temperatures become cold enough water is turned into hail and thus both of these abiotic stresses (temperature and water) can be taken into consideration and interpreted as being hail as one of the abiotic stressors.
Given the prior art the instant invention would have been obvious and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in creating the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Infante’s invention is directed to increasing growth or production of Capsicum chinensis and relies on a two-component formulation comprising chitosan and a partial yeast hydrolysate and that chitosan is essential to the invention. Nowhere in Infante’s invention mentions using only the yeast hydrolysate. This argument is not persuasive because it does not matter if chitosan is needed as argued because the applicant recites comprising language which can allow for additional components. The applicant also argues that Infante is not concerned with controlling abiotic stress in plants. Again the applicant’s instant invention is not merely drawn to treating abiotic stress. The applicant claims “A method for: reducing the effects of abiotic stress in a plant and/or a plant part; and/or increasing the tolerance to abiotic stress of a plant and/or a plant part; and/or increasing biomass or yield of a plant and/or a plant part under abiotic stress”.
The applicant argues that Infante does not teach using an alkaline hydrolysate produced in the manner of claim 1. The Office does not rely on Infante solely as the rejection is not anticipatory. Yiannikouris teaches the method of alkaline hydrolyzing as claimed. The applicant argues that Yiannikouris is merely describing methods for obtaining beta-glucans. Methods for obtaining beta-glucans from yeast and obtaining hydrolysates from yeast can be the same.
The applicant argues that their method of alkaline hydrolysis obtains a distinct product from that of Infante and/or Yiannikouris however does not articulate how or why that is. Merely stating so does not make it true or give evidence to their argument.
The applicant argues that Unkefer merely teaches a method of increasing the concentration of prolines in foliar tissues of a plant to improve growth and other properties. This is exactly why persons having ordinary skill in the art would use proline in the composition/method taught by Infante and Yiannikouris. The prior art does not necessarily have to describe or suggest combining proline with yeast alkaline hydrolysates because persons having ordinary skill would recognize the benefits and combine them through their own knowledge.
The applicant argues that since Jenkins offers no data or hypothesis of arriving at an alkaline hydrolysate of yeast for treating plant abiotic stress, that Jenkins cannot be relied upon. Jenkins in view of the prior art can be relied upon in creating the instant invention. The Office does not rely solely on Jenkins to teach the instant invention. The rejection is an obvious type rejection and not anticipatory.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights