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 .
Claims 1-26 are pending and examined herein on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are drawn to plants or parts thereof of soybean cultivar 3616766 as well as F1 offspring thereof and plants produced by methods applied to soybean cultivar 3616776.
The specification sets forth a definition for the word “plant”. The specification states on page 6 “A plant refers to a whole plant, any part thereof, or a cell or tissue culture derived from a plant, comprising any of: whole plants, plant components to organs (e.g., leaves, stems, roots, etc.), plant tissues, seeds, embryos, plant cells, protoplasts and/or progeny of the same”. Although any plant part thereof, including cells and protoplasts are in of themselves difficult to read as a “plant” as such, at least it is possible to at least limit the definition to having the same genetic makeup as a cell of a plant of the deposit, the phrase “and/or progeny of the same” opens up the definition to include anything that is considered progeny which would read on a multitude of genetic compositions and a multitude of potential traits. This open definition is in direct contradiction and at odds with the claims particularly as they relate to cultivar 3616776 as the definition of plant contradicts “cultivar 3616776” such that it fails to impart a limitation or meaning. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear because while the claim in its plain meaning appears to limit the invention to plants of cultivar 3616776, the definition of plant in the specification then opens up to include progeny of said cultivar such that it is unclear what the claim is drawn to in scope.
Accordingly the claims are rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 21 recite incomplete accession numbers such that it is not clear what the metes and the bounds of the claims are since they are not currently tied to a deposit with an accession number.
Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20 and 22-26 depend directly or indirectly from said claims and are rejected under the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are all product claims that are drawn to an intended use of the product (see the 101 rejection above). It is unclear whether the claims were intended to be method claims as method steps appear to be set forth but in the passive form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 23-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. In the instant case the claims are drawn to a soybean seed as a product claim. The claims recite an intended use of this product which is presented in passive form which does not limit the claims in any way since the claims are drawn to the seed and not populations or mixtures of seeds. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain 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.
Since the seed and/or plant claimed is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a reproducible method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If a seed, or seed of the claimed plant is not so obtainable or available, a deposit thereof may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The specification does not disclose a reproducible process to obtain the exact same seed in each occurrence and it is not apparent if such a seed is readily available to the public. If the deposit of the seed is made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating the seed have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the seed will be irrevocably, and without restriction or condition, released to the public upon the issuance of a patent would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. A minimum deposit of 625 seeds is considered sufficient in the ordinary case to assure availability through the period for which a deposit must be maintained.
If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets 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 showing that
(a) during the pendency of the application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be tested (see 37 CFR 1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become unviable.
Applicant has NOT indicated that Applicant intends to deposit the seeds at the ATCC in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. Accordingly, Applicant needs to provide a signed statement indicating compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 indicating that all restrictions will be irrevocably be removed upon issuance of a patent, the ATCC Accession No. and evidence of deposit to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
35 USC 112 (a) states that “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. In evaluating written description, the threshold question is what is “an adequate written description”. This is question of fact that is evaluated by the factfinder (examiner). MPEP 2163.04 clearly states that “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).”
The instant invention is a new soybean variety (3616776). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new soybean variety. In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzed how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concluded that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety has a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history). In reviewing applicant’s specification there is a phenotypic description as is seen in table 1. However, there is no accompanying breeding history in the specification. Because the specification lacks a breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety the applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
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”, USDA, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, downloaded 05/01/2023, (U)).
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 (UPOV, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, April 6, 2017, See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30 (V)).
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) (W) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020 (X)). 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.
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 et al. (Plant Physiology, Feb. 2011, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655 (Y)) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (p. 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 (p. 645, right column and p. 646, left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al., J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, 2015 (Z), p. 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 to adequately describe a newly developed plant.
The above factual evidence provides a reasonable basis that a breeding history is necessary written description. With this information the examiner has met the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 USC 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary to the adequate description of a plant.
Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
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 breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete 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 complete 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.
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 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 cultivar and all other potential names for the claimed cultivar. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar 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 should identify the breeding method used, such as single seed descent, bulk method, backcross method, etc., and the filial generation in which the instant plant was chosen. Information pertaining to the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents as well as the instant plant should be set forth.
Applicant is 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 cultivar). If there any patent applications or patents in which sibs or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the sibs or parents should be disclosed. 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).
35 USC 112(a) clearly states “The specification (emphasis added) shall contain a written description of the invention”. In the instant application, Applicant did not include a breeding history. This disclosure is insufficient because it does not address all the issues set forth above, and the information provided in the Transmittal Letter with regard to additional names of one parent should be set forth in the specification.
Thus, the breeding history for the claimed cultivar as disclosed in the Specification is incomplete. Claims comprising locus conversions which retain “essentially all of the rest of the genome of the original variety” which opens up the genome to at least a degree of unspecified changes that may alter characteristics. The claims are directed to a genus of soybean plants and seeds that are genotypically and phenotypically different from the deposit, and have different traits from those disclosed in the specification. Given these differences, the complete breeding history for producing the claimed cultivar, including all names for the parents and for the claimed cultivar, are material for patentability. A specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to fully resolve questions of infringement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is drawn to a plant produced by the method of claim 7 which is drawn to introducing an unlimited number of mutations and additionally does not require the resultant plant to retain any of the characteristics of the instantly claimed variety.
Claim 10 is drawn to a plant produced by the method of claim 9 wherein the resultant plant is not required to retain any of the characteristics of the instantly claimed variety and can comprise any number added desired traits.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 15 is drawn to a plant produced by a method for introducing an unlimited number of desired traits such that the plant does not require any amount of similarity to the trait table for the instant variety.
The rejected claims all encompass any number of soybean plants that do not require any specified amount of traits such that one of skill in the art would be able to determine whether or not they were in possession of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are drawn to plants or parts thereof of soybean cultivar 3616766 as well as F1 offspring thereof and plants produced by methods applied to soybean cultivar 3616776.
The specification sets forth a definition for the word “plant”. The specification states on page 6 “A plant refers to a whole plant, any part thereof, or a cell or tissue culture derived from a plant, comprising any of: whole plants, plant components to organs (e.g., leaves, stems, roots, etc.), plant tissues, seeds, embryos, plant cells, protoplasts and/or progeny of the same”. Although any plant part thereof, including cells and protoplasts are in of themselves difficult to read as a “plant” as such, at least it is possible to at least limit the definition to having the same genetic makeup as a cell of a plant of the deposit, the phrase “and/or progeny of the same” opens up the definition to include anything that is considered progeny which would read on a multitude of genetic compositions and a multitude of potential traits.
The specification does not describe what traits and what genetic composition a soybean plant would need to have in order to meet the limitations of the claims as currently written. Virtually any soybean could be encompassed by the claims as they are currently written with the definition of plants as set forth in the instant specification.
Accordingly, one of skill in the art would not be able to determine if they were in possession of the claimed soybean plant, seeds or methods or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Walsh et al (US Patent 11046968, published on 6/29/2021).
The claims are drawn to plants or parts thereof of soybean cultivar 3616766 as well as F1 offspring thereof and plants produced by methods applied to soybean cultivar 3616776.
The specification sets forth a definition for the word “plant”. The specification states on page 6 “A plant refers to a whole plant, any part thereof, or a cell or tissue culture derived from a plant, comprising any of: whole plants, plant components to organs (e.g., leaves, stems, roots, etc.), plant tissues, seeds, embryos, plant cells, protoplasts and/or progeny of the same”. Although any plant part thereof, including cells and protoplasts are in of themselves difficult to read as a “plant” as such, at least it is possible to at least limit the definition to having the same genetic makeup as a cell of a plant of the deposit, the phrase “and/or progeny of the same” opens up the definition to include anything that is considered progeny which would read on a multitude of genetic compositions and a multitude of potential traits.
The specification does not describe what traits and what genetic composition a soybean plant would need to have in order to meet the limitations of the claims as currently written. Virtually any soybean could be encompassed by the claims as they are currently written with the definition of plants as set forth in the instant specification. Even if it could not be asserted that the soybean plant was in fact crossed with the instantly claimed cultivar, because any cross with any genetic composition is encompassed, any given genetic composition appears to be encompassed by the claims as currently written.
Walsh et al teach a transgenic soybean (see claims). Given the broad definition of plant and the unspecified traits such a plant would have to have, Walsh et al inherently meet the limitations of the claims as set forth.
Walsh et al also teach soybean oil from a transgenic soybean plant (see claim 17) which would meet all the limitations of the above claims wherein the product would be indistinguishable from the currently claimed product. It is noted, that even if the broad definition of plant was not present claims 21-22 would still be anticipated.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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 5712707058. 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.
/BRENT T PAGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663