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 .
Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election of Group I, drawn to claims 1-2, 5 and 8-17 in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are withdrawn from consideration for being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 8-17 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “A composition comprising an HLB-susceptible or tolerant rootstock grafted with an HLB-tolerant or resistant citrus interstock” without first introducing what HLB is an acronym for. While the specification makes clear that HLB refers to huanglongbing disease and therefore when read in light of the specification the claim is not indefinite, the claim should be corrected to write out Huanglongbing disease at the first recitation, followed by (HLB) after which HLB can be used in the rest of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “an HLB-susceptible or tolerant rootstock is grafted with a microcitrus which is HLB tolerant or resistant”. Throughout the claims Applicant uses a “-“ between “HLB” and “susceptible” or “tolerant” when that word immediately follows “HLB”. In claim 15 this “-“ is missing. For consistency Examiner suggests amending claim 15 to substitute “HLB-tolerant” for “HLB tolerant” in the last line of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more.
The invention of claim 1 is directed to a product of nature without significantly more.
When analyzing a claim for subject matter eligibility step 1 is to determine if the subject matter is one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. In the instant case of the claimed inventions are compositions of matter and therefore fall within one of the four statutory categories (MPEP 2106.3).
The second step is to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception of statue 101. The three specific exceptions provided by the court are laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04).
The analysis for this second step (Step 2A) is a two-prong inquiry. In the Prong One analysis examiners determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
For the instant independent claim (Claim 1), the claim is drawn to a judicial exception, a product of nature. This is because all of the elements of the claim are naturally occurring as described below:
The claim recites “A composition comprising an HLB-susceptible or tolerant citrus rootstock grafted with an HLB-tolerant or resistant citrus interstock.”
As such the claim requires the following three elements:
HLB-susceptible or tolerant roots (rootstock).
HLB-tolerant or resistant interstock, which is a heterologous plant part inserted between the rootstock and the scion (Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-6).
Grafting between the interstock and the rootstock.
With respect to the element described in 1. above, HLB-susceptible citrus roots (rootstock) are known in the art, in fact the specification calls them “feral or wild cultivars” and refers to them explicitly, when discussing susceptible or tolerant rootstock (Specification, Page 9, Lines 11-26).
With respect to the element described in 2. above, HLB-tolerant interstocks are also naturally occurring.
In this analysis the scope of interstock needs to be determined. The specification states that interstock are shoots that are grafted in between the rootstock and the scion. However, the claim requires only that the interstock be grafted to the rootstock and therefore any heterologous plant shoot that is grafted to rootstock that is capable of being grafted to a scion can be considered to be the claimed interstock (Specification, Page 10, Lines 4-6).
Then the claim requires the interstock to be HLB-tolerant or resistant, this element is also naturally occurring. Hardy discloses that Australian Finger Limes are one of six species of Citrus that are native to Australia and therefore naturally occurring (Hardy, Viola Citrus Nursery. 2010). While, Alves provides evidence of an inherent property of microcitrus including Australian Finger Lines, namely that they are partially resistant or tolerant to HLB disease (Alves, Page 7, Column 2, First Paragraph).
With respect to the element described in 3. above, grafting occurs naturally in a variety of plants including citrus, see Natural & Human History of Grafting, Cornell.edu, Accessed 27 May 2026 (Natural and Human History of Grafting, Sections A.1. and A.3).
Therefore, all three of the required elements are naturally occurring. Given that the claim is drawn to a nature-based product produced by combining multiple components the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the resultant nature-based combination (MPEP 2106.04(c)(I)(A)).
The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state.
The first step of this analysis is to select an appropriate counterpart to the nature-based product. In the instant case the claims are drawn to three naturally occurring elements and the closest naturally occurring counterparts to elements 1. and 2. described above are naturally occurring HLB-susceptible or tolerant citrus roots and a naturally occurring Australian Finger Lime Tree which comprises a HLB-tolerant shoot.
After appropriate counterparts to the nature-based product are selected, appropriate characteristics must be selected. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is drawn to any HLB-susceptible or tolerant root stock grafted to any HLB-tolerant or resistant interstock. Therefore the characteristic to be compared are HLB-tolerance or susceptibility of the roots and HLB-tolerance or resistance of the interstock.
These characteristic occur naturally. Grafton-Cardwell describes the susceptibility of citrus to HLB stating that “The HLB bacteria can infect most citrus cultivars, species and hybrids and even some citrus relatives” making clear that HLB-susceptibility is an inherent characteristic of nearly all citrus roots (Grafton-Cardwell, Second Full Paragraph)( Grafton-Cardwell, University of California Riverside, Accessed 2026).
Alves describes the HLB-resistance/tolerance of Australian Finger Limes which is an inherent characteristic of these plants (Alves, Page 7, Column 2, First Paragraph).
Given that the characteristics claimed in the independent claim are inherent there is no marked difference between the claimed nature-based product and the naturally occurring counterpart and the Step 2a Prong 1 analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention is drawn to a product of nature.
The second prong asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and in the instant case the answer to this question is no. The claim as a whole does not add any elements such a specific phenotype of the claimed invention of any other element beyond the three analyzed above. Therefore, in the Prong 2 analysis the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claim does not amount to significantly more under the Step 2B eligibility test (MPEP 2106.05) because there is nothing else in the claim beyond the judicial exception. Specifically, beyond the three elements required in the claim which given the analysis presented above are drawn to a judicial exception which was not integrated into a practical application.
This evidence and analysis makes clear that both HLB susceptible/tolerant rootstock and HLB tolerant/resistant interstock occur naturally and that citrus grafting also occurs naturally. As such the claimed composition is drawn to a judicial exception without substantially more because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected as being drawn to a product of nature without substantially more.
Claim 2 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein HLB-tolerant interstock is of a microcitrus or a hybrid thereof. Australian Finger Lime is a microcitrus and therefore as described in the analysis in the 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the claim is drawn to a product of nature without substantially more and therefore claim 2 is rejected.
Claim 5 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, where said citrus is any cultivar from the genus Citrus. As described in the analysis in the 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the claim is drawn to a product of nature without substantially more and given that Australian Finger Limes are a Citrus, see Hardy, claim 5 does not add substantially more than the product of nature and is rejected.
Claim 8 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, where said HLB-tolerant interstock is any finger lime or hybrid thereof. As described in the analysis in the 101 rejection of claim 1 above, including the analysis with respect to the Australian Finger Lime, the claim is drawn to a product of nature without substantially more and given that the additional limitation of claim 8 is simply to limit interstock to finger limes, claim 8 does not add substantially more than the product of nature and is rejected.
Claim 13 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein at least one of the rootstock or interstock is diploid. As described in the analysis in the 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the claim is drawn to a product of nature without substantially more and given that the additional limitation of claim 13 is that at least the rootstock or the interstock is diploid and that Australian finger limes are diploid, see Citrus australasica, claim 13 does not add substantially more than the product of nature and is rejected (“Citrus Australasica, Citrusgenomedb.org, Washington State University, 2022).
Claim 14 is drawn to the composition of claim 2, being a tree. As described in the analysis in the 101 rejection of claim 2 above, the claim is drawn to a product of nature without substantially more and given that the additional limitation of claim 14 is that the composition is a tree and that Australian finger limes are a tree, see Hardy, claim 14 does not add substantially more than the product of nature and is rejected (Hardy, Page 1, Column 1, First Paragraph).
Claim 15 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, where the HLB-susceptible or tolerant citrus rootstock is grafted with a microcitrus which is HLB tolerant or resistant. As described in the analysis in the 101 rejection of claim 1 above, specifically the analysis with respect to Australian Finger Lime, the claim is drawn to a product of nature without substantially more, given the additional limitations provided in claim 15 were addressed in the analysis of claim 1, claim 15 does not add substantially more than the product of nature and is rejected.
Claim 17 is drawn to a method of producing fruits comprising growing a plant from the composition of claim 2 and harvesting fruits from the plant. As described in the analysis in the 101 rejection of claim 2 above, the claim is drawn to a product of nature without substantially more.
While claim 17 recites the additional limitations of growing a plant from the composition and harvesting fruits from the tree these limitations do not amount to substantially more than the product of nature. This is because as described in the analysis of claim 1 above, a wild citrus plant and an Australian finger lime when growing close to one another with branches that became fixed would fuse thereby producing a HLB-susceptible rootstock grafted to a HLB-tolerant or resistant interstock. This composition comprises two trees fused together, which his certainly a plant and therefore, this limitation is naturally occurring.
Further, the term harvesting in the claim is broad and can reasonably be interpreted to refer to the natural process of fruit drop after reaching maturity, see Harvesting Citrus Fruits, which states on page 5 in the second full paragraph that “Harvesting is the removal of mature fruits from the plant” (“Harvesting Citrus Fruits | AUDA-NEPAD.” Www.nepad.org, African Union Developmental Agency). As such the additional limitations presented in claim 17 do not amount to substantially more than the natural product and claim 17 is rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 5, 10-13, and 15 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The rejection includes dependent claims.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and recites the limitation “wherein said citrus” in line two of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 refers to “an HLB-susceptible or tolerant rootstock” and “an HLB-tolerant or resistant interstock” but it is not clear what “citrus” in claim 5 is referring to.
Claim 5, recites “wherein said citrus is any cultivar from the genus Citrus, including but not limited to sweet orange (C. sinensis), lemon (C. limon), lime (C. latifolia) grapefruit (C. paradise), sour orange (C. aurantium), and mandarin (C. reticulata), trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata) and any other citrus varieties and their hybrids”. The scope imparted on the claim by this recitation is not clear.
First, the claim states “wherein said citrus is any cultivar from the genus Citrus” and while it is not clear what Citrus this is limiting, see above, it is clear that it is limited to any cultivar of the genus Citrus.
Then, the claim provides a list of citrus to which the claim is “not limited” which concludes “and any other citrus varieties and their hybrids”.
If this list of citrus is not limiting, why is it in the claim which functions to specifically limit the claimed invention to a certain scope?
Given that it is included in the claim implies that this list must impart some modified scope to the claim, however this scope is unclear. Given these recitations in the claim, the scope of claim 5 is not clear and it is rejected as indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation C. sinensis, and the claim also recites Valencia sweet orange which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, claims 11-12 recite the broad recitation (Citrus reticulata x Poncirus trifoliata), and the claims also recite US-942 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 which depends on claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of said rootstock, scion and interstock is diploid” in the second line of the claim. Claim 1 does not recite a “scion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “The composition of claim 1, wherein said an HLB-susceptible or tolerant citrus rootstock is grafted with a microcitrus which is HLB tolerant or resistant.” In this recitation “grafted with a microcitrus” renders the claim scope indefinite. This is because it is not clear if this limitation is intended to further limit the “HLB-tolerant or resistant citrus interstock” from claim 1 to a specific source or if instead this limitation in claim 15 is drawn to another citrus grafting step. This is because claim 15 does not recite “interstock” when referring to the microcitrus to which the citrus rootstock is grafted. Therefore the claim scope is not clear and claim 15 is rejected as indefinite.
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 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)(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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shokrollah, Crop protection 30.5 (2011): 521-525.
With respect to claim 1, Shokrollah discloses the following:
C. reticulata is susceptible to Huanglongbing disease (HLB) which is also known as citrus greening disease (Shokrollah, Page 524, Column 2, Fourth Paragraph; Shokrollah, Page 521, Abstract).
C. hystrix and C. grandis are resistant species and C. aurantium and C. aurantifolia are tolerant species against Huanglongbing disease (HLB) which is also known as citrus greening disease (Shokrollah, Page 522, Column 1, Third Complete Paragraph).
Various combinations of citrus rootstock grafted to interstock and scions including C. aurantium as rootstock with C. hystrix as interstock and C. reticulata as the scion (Shokrollah, Page 525, Column 1, Last Paragraph; Shokrollah, Page 522, Table 1).
Therefore, Shokrollah discloses a composition comprising an HLB-tolerant citrus rootstock (C. aurantium) grafted with an HLB-resistant citrus interstock (C. hystrix).
With respect to claim 5, Shokrollah discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, see above. This includes rootstock from the Citrus sour orange (C. aurantium) (Shokrollah, Page 522, Column 1, Third Complete Paragraph).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shokrollah as evidenced by Rouiss, Annals of botany 121.3 (2018): 571-585.
With respect to claim 13, Shokrollah discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, see anticipation rejection of claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 13, Shokrollah is silent on the ploidy of the citrus cultivars.
With respect to claim 13, Rouiss discloses that diploidy is an inherent property of citrus, stating that “Diploidy is the general rule in citrus with a basic chromosome number of nine” (Rouiss, Page 571, Column 1, First Paragraph of the Introduction).
As such, Shokrollah anticipates the composition of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 8, 10, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shokrollah in view of Alves, Frontiers in plant science 11 (2021): 617664.
With respect to claim 2, Shokrollah teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, see anticipation rejection above.
With respect to claim 2, Shokrollah does not teach an HLB-tolerant or resistant interstock of a microcitrus or a hybrid thereof.
With respect to claim 2, Alves teaches that resistant Citrus relatives graft-compatible with Citrus may provide interstocks able to restrict bacterial titer and distribution in the scion and thus potentially reduce disease damages (Alves, Page 2, Column 2, First Complete Paragraph).
Alves teaches that these resistant Citrus relatives include several Microcitrus species including M. australasica and the ‘Sydney’ hybrid, which performed well as interstocks (Alves, Page 2, Column 2, First Complete Paragraph).
Finally, Alves teaches that three accessions of the microcitrus, Australian finger lime were partially resistant because they showed infection in just part of the clonally propagated scions and in those propagations infection was usually delayed and bacterial titers were generally lower than those found in sweet orange controls (Alves, Page 7, Column 2, First Paragraph). Alves continues stating that these “variable responses may be considered as a genetic resistance trait, which was partially overcome in some clonal propagations by aggressive Las challenge inoculation” (Alves, Page 7, Column 2, First Paragraph).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to modify the composition of Shokrollah in order to use the microcitrus interstocks of Alves. This would have been obvious because both Shokrollah and Alves are drawn to grafting methods to combat a devastating disease in citrus and Alves teaches that microcitrus interstocks have performed well and been able to reduce bacterial titer and potentially reduce disease damages. As such it would have been obvious to use these interstocks in the composition of Shokrollah in order to produce HLB resistant Citrus and to compare the levels of resistance to those grafted plants described in Shokrollah to produce plants having the optimal combination of resistance and desirable agronomic characteristics.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this modification to the composition of Shokrollah in order to try and produce the best plant possible, specifically those with high HLB-resistance and high value agronomic characteristics. This would have been motivating because of the severity of HLB and therefore the financial and agronomic value of a highly resistant Citrus which also produces desirable fruit. As such claim 2 is rejected as obvious under Shokrollah in view of Alves.
With respect to claim 8, Shokrollah in view of Alves collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 2, see above. This includes HLB-tolerant finger lime interstock (Alves, Page 7, Column 2, First Paragraph).
With respect to claim 10, Shokrollah in view of Alves collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 2, see above.
Further, Shokrollah teaches the use of sweet orange scions grafted to rough lemon rootstock which induced tolerance in those sweet orange scions (Shokrollah, 522, Column 1, First Paragraph).
With respect to claim 14, Shokrollah in view of Alves collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 2, see above.
Further, Shokrollah and Alves describe an inherent characteristic of some Citrus, that they are trees (Shokrollah, Page 521, Column 1, Second Paragraph and Column 2, Last Paragraph; Shokrollah, Page 524, Column 2, Second Paragraph; Alves, Page 11, Column 1, Second Paragraph and Column 2, Second Paragraph).
With respect to claim 15, Shokrollah in view of Alves collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 2, see above.
With respect to claim 17, Shokrollah in view of Alves collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 2, see above.
With respect to claims 8, 10, 14-15 and 17 Shokrollah in view of Alves is silent on grafting a scion to the susceptible or tolerant rootstock and resistant or tolerant interstock where that scion is a sweet orange. Additionally, Shokrollah in view of Alves do not explicitly teach methods of producing fruits by growing the composition of claim 2 and harvesting fruits from that composition.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to the PHOSITA to modify the composition of Shokrollah in view of Alves to use a sweet orange as a scion as described in Shokrollah with respect to sweet orange grafted to rough lemon rootstock and it would further have been obvious to grow plants from the composition and to collect fruit from those plants. These modification would have been obvious because the compositions of Shokrollah in view of Alves are drawn to grafted citrus plants having increased resistance to a devastating and susceptible disease. The ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to graft a scion from a valuable and marketable crop, like sweet orange to the rootstock/interstock composition of Shokrollah in view of Alves in order to gain the resistance to HLB conferred by that composition and which would allow for the production of sweet oranges with reduced risk of HLB by growing a plant from this composition and then harvesting fruit from that plant.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because sweet orange trees having disease resistance to HLB would have higher yields allowing farmers to produce more fruit and therefore the trees would command a higher price and also provide distinct agronomic advantages.
As such claims 8, 10, 14-15 and 17 are rejected as obvious under Shokrollah in view of Alves.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shokrollah in view of Albrecht, Scientia horticulturae 147 (2012): 71-80.
With respect to claims 11-12, Shokrollah teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, see anticipation rejection above. Importantly, Shokrollah teaches the concept of grafting HLB-tolerant rootstock to HLB-tolerant or resistant interstock (Shokrollah, Page 521, Abstract).
With respect to claims 11-12, Shokrollah does not explicitly teach the use of rootstock from Volkamer lemon or US-942.
With respect to claims 11-12, Albrecht teaches the use of US-942 and Volkamer Lemon as rootstocks and further teaches that these varieties as tolerant to HLB (Albrecht, Page 71, Abstract).
At the time of filing the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to modify the composition of Shokrollah to use Volkamer Lemon or US-942 as rootstock given that Shokrollah is drawn to compositions of Citrus HLB-tolerant rootstock grafted to HLB-tolerant or resistant interstock and given that Albrecht teaches that Volkamer Lemon and US-942 are moderately tolerant and tolerant to HLB, respectively.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow for the production of citrus varieties having increased resistance to HLB which is an agronomically significant disease which causes large losses in fruit. Combining the teachings of Shokrollah and Albrecht would produce citrus compositions having varied levels of HLB resistance would allow the ordinary artisan to select the optimal grafted plants which could then be grafted to a commercially important scion to produce a HLB-resistant citrus plant. These plants would be produce higher quantity and quality fruit during HLB infection of a grove and would therefore be agronomically and economically important. For those reasons the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings and claims 11-12 are rejected as obvious under Shokrollah in view of Albrecht.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shokrollah in view of Alves and Bowman, HortScience 54.8 (2019): 1425-1428.
With respect to claim 9, Shokrollah in view of Alves collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 8, see above. This includes HLB-tolerant finger lime interstock from Microcitrus australasica and its hybrids (Alves, Page 7, Column 2, First Paragraph; Alves, Page 2, Column 2, First Complete Paragraph).
With respect to claim 16, Shokrollah in view of Alves collectively teach all of the limitations of claim 8, see above. This includes HLB-tolerant finger lime interstock from Microcitrus australasica and its hybrids (Alves, Page 7, Column 2, First Paragraph; Alves, Page 2, Column 2, First Complete Paragraph).
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Shokrollah and Alves are silent on Minnie finger lime interstocks.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Bowman teaches that Minnie finger lime is a hybrid produced through a cross between Australian Finger Lime (Microcitrus australasica) and microcitrus inodora (Bowman, Page 1425, Column 1, Second Paragraph). Further, Bowman teaches that Minnie Finger Lime are small compact and attractive trees and has most other morphological features similar to Australian Finger Lime (Bowman, Page 1425, Column 1, Third Paragraph). Importantly, Bowman notes that Minnie Finger Lime has grown well and appears compatible with all citrus rootstocks tested and also appears less affected by huanglongbing disease than sweet orange trees (Bowman, Page 1427, Column 3, Last paragraph).
At the time of filing a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to modify the composition of Shokrollah in view of Alves in order to use interstock from the Australian Finger Lime hybrid, Minnie Finger Lime of Bowman. This would have been obvious because Alves teaches the use of Australian Finger Lime interstock and interstock from Australian Finger Lime hybrids and Bowman teaches that Minnie Finger Lime is an Australian Finger Lime hybrid which is compatible with a wide variety of citrus rootstock and exhibits reduced susceptibility to HLB as compared to sweet orange trees grown in the same field. As such the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to modify the composition of Shokrollah in view of Alves to use Bowman’s Minnie Finger Lime as the interstock in the composition because of the HLB resistance of this cultivar and the suitability of Minnie Finger Lime for grafting to a wide variety of citrus.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because the use of Minnie Finger Lime would allow for the technique of grafting a resistant interstock to susceptible or tolerant citrus rootstock to be carried out with a wide variety of citrus rootstocks due to the ability of Minnie Finger Lime to take well to grafts to a variety of citrus root stocks and its tolerance to HLB. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do this because it would allow for the production of a wide variety of citrus plants having increased resistance to a plant disease which results in high amounts of crop loss and the associated economic losses.
As such claims 9 and 16 are rejected as obvious under Shokrollah in view of Alves and Bowman.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN JAMES SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0561. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 5:00.
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.
/BRIAN JAMES SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights