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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-13, 21-22, 41-48 are pending.
Claims 7, 10-11, 14-20, 23-40 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-13, 21-22, 41-48 have been examined.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-13, 21-22, 41-48 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for domestic benefit based on Provisional Applications Nos. 63/306,827, filed on 02/04/2022, and 63/291,334, filed on 12/17/2021, as noted in the Application Data Sheet (37 CFR 1.76).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/14/2024 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
[1] Claim 42 is objected to because the chemical structures, as presented, are unclear and difficult to interpret. Specifically, the subscript and superscript notations are illegible.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0041], lines 7-8 disclose the following structure: -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-CH(OH)-CH-CO2R32, where n is an integer from 1 to 40, and R2 is -H. The superscript associated with R in the structure is inconsistent with the subsequent definition of R (32 versus 2). Appropriate correction is required.
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 para.:
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.
[2] Claim 3 (iv) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-CH(OH)-CH-CO2R2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CO2R2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image1.png
197
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[3] Claim 3 (v) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-C(O)-CH-CO2R2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CO2R2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image2.png
183
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[4] Claim 3 (viii) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -(CH2)n-CH(OH)-CH-CO2R2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CO2R2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image3.png
199
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[5] Claim 3 (ix) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -(CH2)n-C(O)-CH-CO2R2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CO2R2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image4.png
211
373
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[6] Claim 3 (xii) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-CH(OH)-CH-CON(R3)2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CON(R3)2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image5.png
207
407
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[7] Claim 3 (xiii) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-C(O)-CH-CON(R3)2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CON(R3)2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image6.png
186
408
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[8] Claim 3 (xvi) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -(CH2)n-CH(OH)-CH-CON(R3)2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CON(R3)2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image7.png
190
373
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[9] Claim 3 (xvii) is rejected as being indefinite. The claim recites the structure -(CH2)n-C(O)-CH-CON(R3)2. As written, this structure is chemically incomplete. Specifically, the carbon atom of the -CH group immediately preceding the -CON(R3)2 moiety does not satisfy the tetravalent bonding requirement of carbon. As illustrated in the example structure below (shown with n = 2 and R2 = H), the carbon atom highlighted in the box forms only three bonds, whereas a carbon atom must form four bonds to satisfy standard valence requirements. Accordingly, the structure as presently recited is chemically inconsistent and therefore indefinite as written.
PNG
media_image8.png
193
375
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[10] Claim 42 is rejected as being indefinite. The claim presents eight (8) chemical structures, in two sets of four (4), with either inconsistent or undefined subscript and superscript notations. As noted in the Claim Objections section, the subscript and superscript notations are illegible.
Using the Examiner’s best efforts, the first set of four structures appear to denote an “x” for the repeating CH2 moiety in the fatty acid side chain; however, the claim defines y as integer from 1 to 20. For purpose of this Office Action, irrespective of whether the notation is intended to be x or y, it is understood from common knowledge in the art that n = 1-20 refers to a repeating moiety.
Additionally, two R groups are attached to oxygen atoms in each of the eight structures. However, the R groups are not defined in the claim. Similarly, the R2 is also undefined. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed structures cannot be reasonably determined.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the R groups are interpreted as -H for purposes of the prior art analysis.
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 paragraph 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.
[11] Claims 1-6 and 42-45, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klessig et al. (Patent WO2014145380A2, published 09/18/2014) (IDS Reference B22).
In regard to claims 1, 6, and 43-44, the reference teaches a method for enhancing disease resistance in a plant by contacting the plant or a plant part with an effective amount of at least one ascaroside that increases resistance to pathogens and/or induces plant defense responses (see reference claim 1), corresponding to instant claim 1. The reference further teaches ascaroside selected from ascr#l, ascr#9, ascr#10, ascr#16, ascr#18, ascr#20, ascr#22, ascr#24, and ascr#26 (see reference claim 18), corresponding to instant claims 6 and 43, and further comprising salicylic acid (see reference claim 4), corresponding to instant claim 44.
The preamble of instant claim 1 recites “[a] method of inhibiting the growth of human enteric pathogens in a plant.” This language merely states an intended use or result and does not impose a structural or controlling limitation on the claimed method, which otherwise recites the operative step of treating seeds of the plant with a composition comprising one or more ascarosides, as taught by the reference. Statements of intended use generally do not limit the scope of a claim where the claim otherwise recites a complete invention (See MPEP §2111.02).
Further, the discovery of a new property or advantage of a previously known method does not render the method patentable. Specifically, “something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property … the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition … does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer" (See MPEP §2112). To the extent the claim requires that the treatment results in inhibition of human enteric pathogens, such a result would be inherent in the prior art method if the same treatment conditions are used.
Accordingly, because the reference teaches contacting plant material with ascarosides in a manner corresponding to the treatment step recited in the instant claims, the recited inhibition of human enteric pathogens represents at most a newly recognized property of a known method and does not distinguish the claimed method from the disclosure of the reference. Therefore, the reference anticipates claims 1, 6, and 43-44.
In regard to claims 2 and 4, the reference teaches an ascaroside having a structure in which the head groups are H, and the fatty acid side chain has the structure -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n where n = 6-11 (reference page 22, top left structure, ascr#1 and ascr#10; claim 18, ascr#1 and ascr#10, inter alia). The fatty acid side chain corresponds to Z, which meets the claimed limitation that Z is an optionally substituted C2-40 aliphatic group. The reference further teaches that each of Ra and Rb is independently -H, as recited in the claim. Accordingly, the reference anticipates claims 2 and 4.
In regard to claims 3 and 5, the reference teaches: ascr#10 - a structure in which the fatty acid side chain has the structure -CH(CH3)-(CH2)6-CO2H (reference page 22; claim 18, inter alia). The fatty acid side chain corresponds to Z, i.e., -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-CO2R2, where n = 6 and R2 is an H; and ascr#3 - a structure in which the fatty acid side chain has the structure -CH(CH3)-(CH2)4-CH=CH-CO2H (reference page 22; claim 18, inter alia). The fatty acid side chain corresponds to Z, i.e., -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-CH=CH-CO2R2, where n = 4 and R2 is an H. Accordingly, the reference anticipates claims 3 and 5.
In regard to claim 42, the reference teaches two classes of ascarosides structures having hydrogen headgroups, a CO2H terminal group, and n = 6-11 for the repeating group in the saturated fatty acid side chain structure, and n = 5-10 for the repeating group in the fatty acid side chain structure containing a single double bond (reference page 22, top structures and listed structures; claim 18, inter alia). Accordingly, the reference anticipates claim 42.
In regard to claim 45, the reference teaches applying ascaroside containing compositions to seed grain by soaking, spraying, or drenching the seeds in a liquid composition (see reference page 11, lines 3-6; page 8, lines 30-31; page 9, lines 1-3, inter alia). Accordingly, the reference anticipates claim 45.
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.
[12] Claims 1-6, 8, 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klessig et al. (Patent WO2014145380A2, published 09/18/2014) (IDS Reference B22).
In regard to claims 1-6 and 42-45, the reference teaches enhancing plant disease resistance by contacting a plant or plant part with an effective amount of at least one ascaroside that increases resistance to pathogen resistance and/or induces plant defense responses. The reference further teaches applying ascaroside containing compositions to seed grain by soaking, spraying, or drenching the seeds in a liquid composition (see reference claim 1; page 11, lines 3-6; page 8, lines 30-31; page 9, lines 1-3, inter alia), corresponding to instant claims 1 and 45. The reference also teaches ascarosides having hydrogen head groups and fatty acid side chains of the form -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n, where n = 6-11 (reference page 22, top left structure, ascr#1 and ascr#10; claim 18, ascr#1 and ascr#10, inter alia), corresponding to the claimed Z group, which satisfies the limitation of an optionally substituted C2-40 aliphatic group. The reference further teaches that each of Ra and Rb is independently -H, corresponding to instant claims 2 and 4. Additionally, the reference teaches ascr#10, having a fatty acid side chain -CH(CH3)-(CH2)6-CO2H (reference page 22; claim 18, inter alia), corresponding to Z = -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-CO2R2, where R2 = H; and ascr#3, having a fatty acid side chain of -CH(CH3)-(CH2)4-CH=CH-CO2H (reference page 22; claim 18, inter alia), corresponding to Z = -CH(CH3)-(CH2)n-CH=CH-CO2R2, where R2 = H, corresponding to instant claims 3 and 5. The reference further teaches two classes of ascarosides structures having hydrogen headgroups and a CO2H terminal group, with n = 6-11 for saturated fatty acid side chains and n = 5-10 for fatty acid side chains containing a single double bond (reference page 22, top structures and listed structures; claim 18, inter alia), corresponding to claim 42. The reference also teaches ascaroside selected from ascr#l, ascr#9, ascr#10, ascr#16, ascr#18, ascr#20, ascr#22, ascr#24, and ascr#26 (see reference claim 18), corresponding to instant claims 6 and 43, and compositions comprising salicylic acid (see reference claim 4), corresponding to instant claim 44.
In regard to claim 8, the reference teaches oscr#9 and oscr#10 (reference pages 22-23; claims 18 and 20). These structures differ only in the number of (-CH2-)n repeat groups in the side chain. Because the reference recognizes this structural class of ascarosides and describes multiple members of the homologue’s series, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that other ascarosides within the same structural class, differing only in the number of methylene repeat unit, would possess similar properties and could likewise be used in the disclosed methods.
With regard to claim 46, the reference teaches an ascaroside containing compositions that enhance plant protection against nematodes and other pathogens (reference page 7, lines 17-19; claims 10, 12-17). The reference further teaches that such compositions provide protection for one week ( i.e., 7 days) (reference page 7, lines 8-9).
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to use ascarosides and methods taught by Klessig et al. to achieve the claimed compositions and methods because the reference explicitly teaches that these ascarosides enhance plant defense responses and pathogen resistance, provides detailed structural guidance for selecting effective ascarosides, and demonstrates practical application methods that are directly transferable to the claimed methods. Given the recognition in Klessig et al. of entire homologous series of ascarosides with varying side chain lengths and their predictable biological activity, a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation that other ascarosides within the same structural class would exhibit comparable efficacy. Thus, the combination of the reference’s teachings would have naturally led one of ordinary skill to modify and apply theses known ascarosides in the manner claimed, with high likelihood of achieving the same enhanced plant protection and disease resistance outcomes, making the claimed invention an obvious extension of the prior art.
[13] Claims 9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klessig et al. (Patent WO2014145380A2, published 09/18/2014) (IDS Reference B22) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 42-46 above, and further in view of Lechowska et al. (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 540;, Published 01/28/2019).
In regard to claims 9, 21, and 22, Klessig et al. teaches treating seeds with ascaroside and salicylic acid in aqueous compositions to improve pathogen resistance, including concentrations of about 0.001-0.1 mM, and applying such compositions to seeds by soaking or similar liquid treatment methods (reference claim 1; page 6, lines 15-19; page 35, lines 20-22; Figure 14A, inter alia). However, Klessig et al. does not explicitly teach soaking seeds for durations sufficient to produce measurable hydration effects such as weight increase or transition from quiescence.
Lechowska et al. teaches that seeds can be soaked or primed in aqueous solutions to induce controlled imbibition and hydration (reference Abstract). The reference quantitatively shows that primed Brassica napus seeds exhibit increased water uptake during early soaking periods, including increases of approximately 42% after 15 mins and 52% after 30 mins relative to unprimed controls (reference page 3, Results (2.1); Figure 2A), and also demonstrate physical enlargement, with primed seeds exhibiting diameters about 11% greater than unprimed seeds during early germination (reference page 6, Section 2.3; Figure 2B). These quantitative hydration effects demonstrate that soaking seeds for defined durations results in measurable increases in seed size and water content consistent with seed weight gain through imbibition and progression toward germination without bringing seeds out of quiescence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the aqueous ascaroside treatment of Klessig et al. to seeds for soaking durations sufficient to permit hydration and imbibition as demonstrated by Lechowska et al., since selecting appropriate soaking times to achieve desired hydration levels constitutes routine optimization of known seed treatment parameters.
[14] Claims 12-13, 41, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klessig et al. (Patent WO2014145380A2, published 09/18/2014) (IDS Reference B22) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 42-46 above, and further in view of Nei et al. (Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2011, Pages 1089-1094, Published 10/01/2011).
In regard to claims 12-13, 41, and 47, Klessig et al. teaches treating seeds with ascaroside to enhance pathogen resistance (reference claim 1). The reference contemplates treatment of crop and vegetable seeds, including seeds of lettuce, tomato, beans, and other edible plants (claim 8). Klessig et al., however, does not explicitly teach the application of ascaroside to seeds that produce edible sprouts or microgreens, or that such treatment can mitigate contamination by human pathogens such as Salmonella or Escherichia coli.
Nei et al. teaches that edible sprout seeds, including alfalfa and radish, are commonly contaminated with human pathogens such as Salmonella or E. coli, and further teaches that treatment of sprout seed prior to germination can effectively reduce such pathogens (Reference Abstract, Conclusion, Table 1-3). Thus, Nei et al. establishes that edible sprout seeds are commonly treated at the seed stage to reduce microbial contamination (reference Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the ascaroside and salicylic acid seed treatment taught by Klessig et al. to seeds used for producing edible sprouts and microgreens in order to improve seedling vigor and resistance, while also addressing the known problem of pathogen contamination on sprout seeds as taught by Nei et al. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Klessig et al. with those of Nei et al. and to apply the disclosed seed treatment to seeds used for producing edible sprouts and microgreens, as recited in claims 12-13, 41, and 47.
[15] Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klessig et al. (Patent WO2014145380A2, published 09/18/2014) (IDS Reference B22) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 42-46 above, and further in view of Klessig et al. (2) (Patent WO2021007282A1, published 01/14/2021) (IDS Reference B30).
In regard to claims 48, WO2014145380A2 teaches treating plants or plant parts, including seeds, with ascaroside (e.g., ascr#18) to influence plant responses and plant performance (reference claims 1 and 18). However, WO2014145380A2 does not explicitly teach that such treatment results in accelerated germination, increased germination percentage, or accelerated growth of plants grown from treated seeds relative to untreated seeds.
WO2021007282A1 teaches that treating seeds with ascarosides results in improved germination and plant growth (reference claims 1-3). For example, the reference discloses that corn seeds treated with ascr#18 at concentrations of about 10-1000 nM exhibited faster emergence that untreated controls when measured approximately 4-11 days after planting, approximately 80% versus 50% at 1000 nM after 5 days (reference page 18, lines 29-33; Figure 8A, inter alia). Similarly, tomato seeds treated with ascr#18 at concentrations of about 10-1000 nM exhibited faster emergence that untreated controls when measured approximately 4-11 days after planting, approximately 100% versus 60% at 1000 nM after 5 days (reference page 17, lines 25-30; Figure 4A, inter alia).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of WO2014145380A2 with WO2021007282A1 and apply the ascaroside seed treatments of WO2014145380A2 with the expectation of achieving the germination and plant growth improvements demonstrated in WO2021007282A1, including accelerated germination, increased germination percentage, or accelerated growth of plants grown from treated seeds relative to untreated seeds.
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.
[16] Claims 1-6 and 43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22-23, 25, 27, 38-39, 41, 43, 51, 55-57 of copending Application No. 18/860035 (US-20250287946-A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application 18/860,035 teaches a method comprising treating a plant, or portion thereof, with ascaroside (reference claims 51 and 55-57 ). The copending application further teaches ascaroside structures having similar substitution options for Z, Ra and Rb moieties (reference claims 22 and 38), structurally modified ascaroside listed as (i)-(xvii) corresponding one-to-one with those disclosed in the present claims (reference claim 23 and 39), similar head group substitutions (reference claims 25 and 41), and ascr#18 (reference claim 27 and 43), which correspond to the subject matter recited in instant claims 1-6 and 43.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
[17] Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15-18 and 29-31 of copending Application No. 18/867965 (US20250318532A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application 18/867965 teaches a method comprising treating a plant, or portion thereof, by co-administrating an ascaroside (reference claims 1 and 18 ). The copending application further teaches ascaroside structures having similar substitution options for Z, Ra and Rb moieties (reference claims 15 and 29), structurally modified ascaroside listed as (i)-(xvii) corresponding one-to-one with those disclosed in the present claims (reference claims 16 and 30), and ascr#18 (reference claims 17 and 31), which correspond to the subject matter recited in instant claims 1-3, 5-6, and 43.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
[18] Claims 2-6 and 43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/864686 (US20250346621A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application 18/864686 teaches ascaroside structures having similar substitution options for Z, Ra and Rb moieties (reference claim 10). The copending application further teaches structurally modified ascaroside listed as (i)-(xvii), corresponding one-to-one with those disclosed in the present claims (reference claim 11), as well as specifically selected overlapping modified structures corresponding to claim 3 (ii) (reference claims 13 and 15). The copending application also teaches similar head group substitutions (reference claim 12) and ascr#18 (reference claim 14). These teachings correspond to the subject matter recited in the instant claims 2-5, and 43.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI M ALAOUIE whose telephone number is 571-272-0844. The examiner can normally be reached Flextime: (M-TH) 7:30 am 6:30 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ALI M. ALAOUIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights