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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 13, 16, 18 and 20 in the reply filed on 13 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12, 14, 15, 17 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 13 March 2026.
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g). See the Amendment to page 1 of the Specification filed 11 June 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 5-7 do not have the appropriate border size and the figures have been covered by the page label(s). See specifically 37 C.F.R. 1.84(g). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because the paragraph designations are the same as that of claim 1 upon which it depends.
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 2, 3, 5 and 13 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.
At claim 2, steps (b), (e) and (g) it is unclear if “optionally” also includes the following step. Hence, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclears. It would appear that the “optionally” refers to an optional sub-step of the preceding step.
At claim 3, step (i) is listed as “optionally” but it is unclear steps (j) and (k) are also optional or are one or more are required to be practiced.
At claim 5(i), for example, “and combinations thereof” appears to require all of the listed “hydrolysed or partially hydrolysed protein matter derived from…” and thus it is unclear what “combinations” are encompassed. Hence, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. This issue is also at 5(ii) and 5(iii). The list(s) should recite the species in the alternative because they are not in Markush format.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 1, but also recites the same method steps of claim 1. Hence, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are.
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.
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 13 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 13 fails to further limit the method of claim 4. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco Villalobos, David (EP 3 501 268 A1) in view of Gorecka et al (2017 J. Cent. Euro. Agri. 18(1):185-195), Molnar et al (2011 Acta Biologica Szegediensis 55(1): 123-127), Kuo et al (1964 Acta Botanica Sinica 12(4):364-375) and Niazian et al (2020 Euphytica Vol. 216, No. 69, 21 pages).
The claims are directed to a method of producing a haploid, polyhaploid or double haploid Beta vulgaris plant using an isolated microspore cultured in the presence of a complex protein composition (casein hydrolysates used in the example) and a histone deacetylase inhibitor (trichostatin A used in the example). The claimed method additionally includes use of a chromosome doubling agent (colchicine used in the example) to produce a double haploid.
Pacheco teaches a method for inducing callus formation from at least one plant cell by cultivating the plant cell in the presence of a histone deacetylase inhibitor at claim 1, wherein the HDACi is trichostatin A at claim 3 and regenerating shoots from a callus tissue culture at claims 5 and 6. Pacheco teaches using the auxin BAP in the presence of trichostatin A at concentrations between 0.01 mM to 5.0 mM to induce callus in the dark at column 16, paragraph [0060]. Pacheco exemplifies culturing Beta vulgaris in the presence of the histone deacetylase inhibitor trichostatin A and the auxin BPA at column 2 at paragraph [0007] and column 16. Pacheco teaches that the art had taught the induction of haploid embryogenesis from microspore culture in the presence of trichostatin A at column 2, line 11-18.
Pacheco does not teach including a complex protein composition with at least one histone deacetylase inhibitor.
Gorecka et al teach that development of embryos by culturing isolated microspores of Beta vulgaris was predictable.
Molnar et al teach culturing of isolated microspores for the production of dihaploids because is greatly reduced the time to establish inbred lines for hybrid breeding (page 124, left column, 4th paragraph). Molnar et al teach casein hydrolysate can be used as a source of calcium, phosphate, several microelements, vitamins and most importantly a mixture of up to 18 amino acids (page 126, left column, 2nd paragraph). Molnar et al teach that it has been observed that using casein hydrolysate is more effective for plant culture than the addition of the major amino acids which it provides.
Kuo et al teach culturing Helianthus annuus callus in the presence of casein hydrolysate (500 ppm) and found an increase in proembryos by 35% compared to a control, and that including coconut milk increased proembryos by 44.1% (page 370).
Niazian et al teach the state of the art before the effective filing date of the instant claims for production of double haploid plants. Niazian et al teach isolation of microspores was routine in the art (pages 5-6). Niazian et al teach that rapid optimization of culture conditions, sue to the direct observation of microspore embryogenesis, is another advantage of isolated microspore culture over anther culture (page 6, left column, 1st paragraph). Niazian et al teach teaches use of colchicine as a embryogenesis trigger (page 6, right column, last paragraph). Niazian et al teach that the prior art has used the histone deacetylase inhibitor trichostatin A in microspore culture (wheat) to enhance embryogenesis on page 11, right column, end of 1st paragraph. Niazian et al teach colchicine is a known additive used for enhancing gametophytic embryogenesis (page 12, left column, 3rd paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the teachings of Pacheco to produce haploid embryos and callus of Beta vulgaris using isolated microspores as taught by Gorecka et al. Molnar et al teaches that using casein hydrolysate in a culture of isolated microspores is advantageous. Kuo et al teach that casein hydrolysate improves viability of young differentiated embryos (of Helianthus annua). Further, Niazian et al teach that it would have been obvious to combine the histone dacetylase inhibitor trichostatin A and the chromosome doubling agent colchicine in the culturing of isolated microspores. The most obvious substitution would have been the isolated microspore of Gorecka et al for the micropropagated shoots used by Pacheco. Further, the art had taught that adding trichostatin A and casein hydrolysate had the advantage increasing viability of somatic embryos. In fact, the differences between the claim limitations and the teachings of Pacheco would have been obvious and the addition of trichostatin A and casein hydrolysate would have been expected to produce a predictable result. Given the teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H KRUSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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.
/David H Kruse/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights