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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/03/2026.
Claims 1-15 are under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 and claim 15 recite an abstract idea that is a mental process. The recitation of generating a variable amplicon length polymorphism profile (VALP) from the amplicons and comparing the generated VALP with a G94 variable amplicon length polymorphism profile, thereby determining whether the mature cotton fiber includes G94 recite in claim 1 is a mental process and thereby verifying the authenticity of the mature cotton fiber from the manufactured article as including a fiber from G94 recited in claim 15 are mental processes. Neither the claim nor the specification set forth limiting definitions for generating and comparing and the claims do not set forth how generating or comparing is accomplished. The broadest reasonable interpretation of generating and comparing is a step that comprises mental process step which could be practice in the mind. Additionally the step of generating a profile can encompass data analysis process which can be accomplished mentally by evaluating data and critical thinking process wherein one mentally reads information from results. The step of comparing includes evaluating data and critical thinking process wherein one mentally reads information in a database or report and compares the data. The claims additionally set forth providing mature cotton fiber from a manufactured article, extracting DNA from the fiber, amplifying DNA using a primer set of SEQ ID NO 1 and SEQ ID NO 2 to produce one or more amplicons.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps in addition to the judicial exceptions are data gathering steps that do not apply or integrate the judicial exception in any way. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps in addition to the judicial exception are data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality employing techniques that were well-established, routine and conventional at the time of the invention. The courts have recognized that amplifying and sequencing nucleic acid sequences is among the well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when claimed in a merely generic matter. Here, the claims include steps of providing a mature cotton fiber from a manufactured article, extracting DNA from a mature cotton fiber, amplifying a portion of DNA using SEQ ID NO 1 and SEQ ID NO 2. Prior to the invention, Liang et al. (US Patent 8940485 B2) taught providing mature cotton fibers, extracting genomic DNA from cotton fibers, amplifying region by PCR (see and teaches detection of amplicons by capillary electrophoresis (see fig 1 and column 7, lines 1-5). Mishra teaches SEQ ID NO 1 and SEQ ID NO 2 for validation of fiber quality (see pg. 353, BNL1531 primers). This evidences that these steps were conventional at the time of the invention. Furthermore, Liang teaches a detecting physical characteristic such as a different sequence (see column 3, lines 1-12).
Claims 2-4 limits the DNA, which is a field of use limitation and does not amount to significantly more. Liang further teaches nuclear, mitochondrial, and chloroplast DNA (see column 4, lines 38-41).
Claims 5-7 limits the judicial exception of how the generated VALP is obtained.
Claims 8, limits PCR to real-time PCR, which was well known, routine and conventional in the art. Liang teaches real-time PCR (see column 5, lines 10-12).
Claim 9-11, further comprises additional detectable physical characteristics, which were routine in the art. Liang teaches detectable physical characterizes (see column 3, lines 1-12).
Claims 12-14 further limit the sample, which is a field of use limitation and does not amount to significantly more.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 8940485 B2) in view of Mishra (Int. J. Scientific Research in Knowledge, 1(9), pp 349-357, 2013) and Gurmessa (Proceedings of National Conference on Crop Improvement and Management Research, 2019, pp. 67-78)
Liang teaches for identifying cotton cultivar by collecting mature cotton fibers from a sample, extracting genomic DNA from the collected mature cotton fibers, amplifying DNA with PCR based techniques, and analyzing amplified product to distinguish between a first cotton cultivar and a second cotton cultivar. Liang teaches the first cotton cultivar is G. barbadense and the second cotton cultivar is G. barbadense (see column 2, lines 47-55). Liang teaches amplifying using a set of specific primers that target sequence polymorphism between the two cultivars (See column 2, lines 58-61). Liang teaches SSR primers to detect markers with varying DNA length polymorphisms (see column 6, lines 48-50). Liang teaches that primer sequences are only exemplary and are not meant to be limiting in scope for verifying cotton fibers (see column 9, lines 1-5).
With regard to claims 2-4, Liang teaches genomic DNA comprises nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA and chloroplast DNA (see column 4, lines 38-41).
With regard to claims 5 and 7, Liang teaches analyzing amplification products by detecting size of provide by capillary electrophoresis or gel electrophoresis (see column 3, lines 13-17).
With regard to claim 8, Liang teaches amplification includes real-time PCR (see column 5, lines 10-12)
With regard to claims 9-11, Liang teaches the targeted sequences have different detectable physical characteristics and different sequence compositions (see column 3, lines 1-12). Liang teaches probes that bind to a target sequence (see column 4, lines 56-64).
With regard to claims 12 and 13, Liang teaches the sample is a textile item or raw cotton material (see column 2, lines 55-57).
With regard to claim 14, Liang teaches textiles include yarn and fabric (see column 5, lines 43-45).
Liang does not primers consisting or comprising of SEQ ID NO 1 and SEQ ID NO 2. Liang does not teach G94.
Mishra teaches amplification of genomic DNA of cotton genotypes. Mishra teaches SSR primers. Mishra teaches primers for BNL1531, which consists of SEQ ID NO 1 and SEQ ID NO 2 (see table 2, pg. 353).
Gurmessa teaches genetic diversity among G. barbadense. Gurmessa teaches evaluation of G94 (See table 1). Gurmessa teaches use of SSR markers to discriminate germplasm, including G94 (see pg. 77).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve the method of identifying cultivars of G. barbadense by amplifying DNA extracted from cotton fiber, as taught by Liang to include additional SSR markers as taught by Mishra and identify and verify authencity of known cultivars of G. barbadense, including Giza 94 as taught by Gurmessa to improve the method of Liang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the method of identifying cultivars of G. barbadense of Liang and include additional known primers for SSR markers, including primers taught by Mishra consisting of SEQ ID NO 1 and SEQ ID NO 2 because Liang teaches additional primers could be used in the method and the method is not limited to the primers disclosed by Liang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the method of identifying cultivars of G. barbadense of Liang and include analysis of other known cultivars of G. Barbadense, including G94 for authenticity because Liang teaches the method allows for distinguishing between two different cultivars of G. Barbadense. In performing the method of identifying G94 as taught by Liang and Gurmessa with primers taught in the art by Mishra, one would have generated polymorphic profile with peaks at 115bp, 121bp, 126 bp, and 128bp as these peaks would have resulted in performing amplification of G94 using BNL1531 primer pair taught by Mishra.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAE L BAUSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-4p.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/SARAE L BAUSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
