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 The amended claim set filed 10/13/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 will be examined on the merits herein. Examiner Interpretation The use of the term exogenous refers to a component having an external source typically from a cell or organism other than itself. In the claims and specification, the term refers to proteins which may be derived from an endogenous source but were cloned into a vector of exogenous source. The examiner interprets those proteins or nucleic acids to be exogenous because they are fused to an exogenous nucleic acid. However, the examiner would prefer the term ectopic in this disclosure for clarity to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Specification Objections The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks in par.55 of the specification and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 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. Biological Deposits Claim 7 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 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. The specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure, because the specification does not provide evidence that the claimed biological materials are: (1) known and readily available to the public; (2) reproducible from the written description; or, (3) deposited in compliance with the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. The specification lacks complete deposit information for the Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477, Bacillus subtilis strain ATCC 9943, Bacillus subtilis strain QST7 1 3, Bacillus atrophaeus strain ABI02A DSM 32019, Bacillus atrophaeus strain ABI03 DSM 32285, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain RTI301, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BA-1, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens IMG 5-29032, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT8836, and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens M4 (S499) cells. Because it is not clear that the cells possessing the properties of the aforementioned cells are known and publicly available or can be reproducibly isolated without undue experimentation, and because the invention claims or uses the aforementioned cells, a suitable deposit for patent purposes is required. Accordingly, filing of evidence of the reproducible production of the aforementioned cells is necessary to practice the instant invention or filing of evidence of deposit is required. Without a publicly available deposit of the aforementioned cells, one of ordinary skill in the art could not be assured of the ability to practice the invention as claimed. Exact replication of the aforementioned cells is an unpredictable event. Applicants must comply with the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. If the deposits are made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the aforementioned cells have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty, that the aforementioned cells will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent and that the aforementioned cells will be replaced should they ever become non-viable, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. If the deposits have not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposits meet 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. For each deposit made pursuant to these regulations, the specification shall contain: The accession number for the deposit; The date of the deposit; A description of the deposited biological material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination; and The name and address of the depository. A viability statement for each deposit of a biological material not made under the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure must be filed in the application and must contain: The name and address of the depository; The name and address of the depositor; The date of deposit; The identity of the deposit and the accession number given by the depository; (5) The date of the viability test; The procedures used to obtain a sample if the test is not done by the depository; and A statement that the deposit is capable of reproduction. Applicant must assure that: Access to the deposit will be available during pendency of the patent application making reference to the deposit. All restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of the patent. In the instant application, at least the following issues exist. Searching Google for the aforementioned cells did not uncover readily available sources without limitations . If a deposit is made after the effective filing date of the application for patent in the United States, a verified statement is required from a person in a position to corroborate that the biological material described in the specification as filed is the same as that deposited in the depository, stating that the deposited material is identical to the biological material described in the specification and was in the Applicant’s possession at the time the application was filed. As a possible means for completing the record, applicant may submit a copy of the contract with the depository for deposit and maintenance of each deposit along with the necessary statements in order to meet the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. Applicant’s attention is directed to In re Lundak , 773 F.2nd. 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (CAFC 1985) and 37 CRF 1.801-1.809 for further information concerning deposit practice. 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. Claim 7 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 7 recites the limitation “ Bacillus atrophaeus strain ABI02A DSM 32019, Bacillus atrophaeus strain ABI03 DSM 32285, or Bacillus atrophaeus strain ABI05 DSM 24918 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Bacillus atrophaeus is not listed in claim 6 from which claim 7 depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 is drawn to the pesticidal minicell and its exogenous components targeting the same pest or different pests, this encompasses all the options of claim 2 from which it depends, the minicell would inherently be pesticidal if it exogenous pesticidal components and those would target at least 1 pests and possible different pests depending on which minicells and which exogenous components were selected. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 is drawn to the pesticidal minicell and its exogenous components targeting the same pest or different pests, this encompasses all the options of claim 15 from which it depends, the minicell would inherently be pesticidal if it exogenous pesticidal components and those would target at least 1 pests and possible different pests depending on which minicells and which exogenous components were selected. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. If the applicant intended the endogenous components of the minicell to be separated from the exogenous components the applicant may reconstruct the claims more clearly. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6, 10, 14, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Islam et al. (Minicell-based fungal RNAi delivery for sustainable crop protection, EPub 24 February 2021 ). Islam teaches Minicell-based fungal RNAi delivery for sustainable crop protection. Briefly minicells were sprayed (a liquid carrier phase) on strawberries (a plant) in a concentration effective to control Botryotinia fuckeliana (a fungus) see supplemental methods lines 138-149. The minicells were E. coli containing a genetic mutation of minCDE which is the z-ring inhibition proteins of instant claim 5, supplemental methods lines 24-25. Islam teaches the E. coli contains a dsRNA expression cassette ; see supplemental methods lines 40-50. The dsRNA is an exogenous pesticidal nucleic acid used for gene silencing and inhibited fungal growth on plants p.1847 summary and Fig 4. These teachings anticipate claims 1-6, 10, 14, 17, and the method of claim 20. Claim 17 does not further limit claim 2. Islam also teaches a method of making pesticidal minicells consisting of taking one E. coli colony with the minCDE mutations as taught above which is the parental pesticidal bacterium and shaking it in Luria Broth and growing it under conditions which express the dsRNA based on their expression cassette. The solution produces minicells which are separated from the parental bacteria by centrifugation, see supplemental methods lines 24-50. This anticipates claim 19. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of Frank ( US 20160227788 A1, 2016-08-11) the teachings of Islam are laid out in the 102 rejections above anticipating all elements of the following claims except those addressed hereafter. Islam does not teach any of the specific strains of bacteria listed in claim 7. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a strain such as Bacillus subtilis strain QST713 because it is a naturally occurring widespread bacterium that can be used to control plant diseases including blight, scab, gray mold, and several types of mildew. Regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Europe classified Bacillus subtilis QST713 as displaying no adverse effects on humans or the environment as taught by Frank Par. 99. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to put the exogenous dsRNA molecules into Bacillus subtilis strain QST713 for the advantages listed above and to extend its antifungal capabilities. Claims 8, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of Bowen (US 20200095603 A1, published March 3, 2020, in IDS filed 01/04/2024) The teachings of Islam are laid out in the 102 rejections above anticipating all elements of the following claims except those addressed hereafter. Bowen teaches Pir toxins from Photorhabdus luminescens which inhibit crop pests and may be combined with other insecticidal proteins par. 11. Bowen further contemplates the other insecticidal proteins as Cry toxins in par.19 It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to develop Photorhabdus luminescens minicells expressing exogenous Pir and Cry toxins because the development of resistance in target pests to insecticidal toxin proteins creates the continuing need for discovery and development of new forms of insecticidal toxin proteins par.9. And it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to hedge their bets against the development of resistance by putting multiple different toxins into a single composition. The teachings of Islam and Bowen make obvious claims 8, 15-16, and 18 which does not further limit claim 15. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of AgroSpheres (WO2019/060903 Al, published March 28, 2019, in IDS filed 01/04/2024) The teachings of Islam are laid out in the 102 rejections above anticipating all elements of the following claims except those addressed hereafter. Islam does not teach the foliar treatment of claim 11 . AgroSpheres teaches foliar spray of minicells in par.431. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look for other teachings in the art of pesticides or minicells to extend protection not only to the fruit but also the leaves of plants. Islam does not teach the drench treatment of claim 12. AgroSpheres teaches a drench in par.431. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look for other teachings to apply the composition in a wider range of applications in order to increase sales. Islam does not teach the surfactants of claim 13. AgroSpheres teaches wetting agents such as natural or synthetic surfactants in par.233. The surfactant can aid in wetting the composition so it will stick better to hydrophobic surfaces such as leaves. 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. Nonstatutory 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 1-6, 10-12, 14, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 18728420 (HIGH YIELD MINICELL AND PROTEIN PRODUCING BACTERIAL STRAINS) hereinafter app420, in view of Islam. The teachings of Islam are detailed in full in above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App420 claim 1 teaches a composition comprising a liquid carrier phase and a plurality of minicells wherein a first minicell comprises a Pir toxin and a second minicell comprises a Cry toxin (exogenous insecticidal toxins). App420 claim 1 does not teach a genetic mutation causing a modification in cell division. However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a genetic mutation to increase the efficiency of minicell production. App420 does not specifically teach an exogenous expression cassette however this is a standard technique producing molecules in the art and is taught by Islam above. App420 does not teach a specific bacterial species however it would be obvious to use the E. coli of Islam as it is known to be genetically tractable. Claims 11 is an obvious application of the method of app420 claim 41. Claim 12 is an obvious formulation of the method of app420 claim 42. Claim 15 is drawn to adding another element such as a dsRNA, Islam teaches a dsRNA for antifungal activity above. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the dsRNA to further extend the insecticidal activity to fungicidal to provide more features and increase the customer base. Claim 16 is drawn to the active ingredient being fungicidal which is taught in double patenting rejection of Claim 15 above. Claim 18 does not further limit claim 15 and is rejected under the rationale of claim 15. Claims 7 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of app420 in view of Islam in further view of Frank. The teachings of Islam and Frank are detailed in full in the 102 and 103 rejections above. App420 does not teach the specific strains in claim 7. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a strain such as Bacillus subtilis strain QST713 because it is a naturally occurring widespread bacterium that can be used to control plant diseases including blight, scab, gray mold, and several types of mildew. Regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Europe classified Bacillus subtilis QST713 as displaying no adverse effects on humans or the environment as taught by Frank Par. 99. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Bacillus subtilis strain QST713 for the added advantages listed above. Claims 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of app420 in view of Islam in further view of Somvanshi et al. (A single promoter inversion switches Photorhabdus luminescens Between Pathogenic and Mutualistic States, 2012). The teachings of Islam are laid out in the 102 and rejections above. Somvanshi teaches Photorhabdus luminescens contains potent Tc and Mcf insecticidal toxins, p.89 col.1. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to develop Photorhabdus luminescens as the host of the exogenous Pir and Cry toxins of app420 claim 1 because they would also have the added benefit of other toxins produced by Photorhabdus luminescens . Claims 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of app420 in view of Islam in further view of AgroSpheres . The teachings of Islam and AgroSpheres are laid out above. App420 and Islam do not teach the surfactants of claim 13. AgroSpheres teaches wetting agents such as natural or synthetic surfactants in par.233. The surfactant can aid in wetting the composition so it will stick better to hydrophobic surfaces such as leaves. Claim 20 is drawn to applying the pesticidal minicell composition to a plant or area to be planted. This would be an obvious application of claim 40 of app420 which teaches a method of delivering the pesticidal minicell composition to at least one pest habitat. Plants or areas to be planted are habitats for plant pests. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Inquiry Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RUDOLPH E. SLOUP Jr. IV Ph.D. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7899 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday, 9am to 4pm . 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, Daniel E. Kolker can be reached at (571) 272-3181 . 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. /RUDOLPH E. SLOUP Jr. IV Ph.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1645 /DANIEL E KOLKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1645