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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 24-40 are pending.
Claims 24-40 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that Instant Application 18/723,254, filed on 2024, Jun. 21 is a National Stage entry of PCT/KR2022/021041, filed on 2022, Dec. 22, which claims foreign priority to KR 10-2021-0185259, filed on 2021, Dec. 22.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2024, Jun. 21, 2025, Jun. 06, and 2026, Jan. 13 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 24-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell (The Effect of Natural Amino Acids on Severity of Bacterial Lead Spot of Chrysanthemums, Florida State Horticultural Society, 1965, 440-445) in view of Woltz (Growth-Modifying & Antimetabolite Effects of Amino Acids on Chrysanthemum, Plant Physiol., 1963, 38, 93-99. doi: 10.1104/pp.38.1.93), as evidenced by Guo (Use of Mycelium and Detached Leaves in Bioassays for Assessing Resistance to Boxwood Blight. Plant Dis., 2016, 100, 1622-1626. doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-16-0016-R).
Claim 24 is directed to a method of enhancing plant disease resistance, the method comprising treating a plant body with a composition comprising any one or more selected from the group consisting of branched-chain amino acids, proline, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and histidine, wherein the plant diseases comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of leaf spot, bacterial soft rot, Phytophthora stem and root rot, bacterial leaf blight, and rice blast.
Littrell teaches a vacuum infusion method to artificially incorporate solutions containing natural amino acids into the intercellular spaces of detached chrysanthemum leaves to inoculate against bacterial leaf spot (title; page 440, left column, paragraphs 1-2). The method comprises administering to the plant each natural amino acid, including branched-chain amino acids, proline, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and histidine, and is taught to decrease the time for symptom appearance about 32 hours when compared to the water and bacteria infused control (page 440, left column, paragraph 2). Littrell further teaches bacterial growth varies considerably based on the amino acid applied, due in part to the potential antimetabolic role of the amino acid (page 444, left column, paragraph 2).
The difference between the method taught by Littrell and the instant application is that Littrell teaches inoculation on detached leaves instead of a plant body.
However, Woltz teaches the growth and antimetabolite effects of amino acids on whole chrysanthemum plants by applying amino acid solutions to the soil of growing plants (title; page 94, left column, paragraph 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Littrell and Woltz because both methods are comprised of administering natural amino acids to the same plant type. Furthermore, it is known in the art that inoculation of detached leaves is analogous to inoculation to the plant body because both types of inoculation give comparable results when compared across genotypes, although the detached leaf assay results in greater percentages of symptom expression (see Guo, abstract). Therefore, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying amino acid solutions for the treatment of bacterial leaf spots as taught by Littrell to living chrysanthemum plants as taught by Woltz, thus arriving at the current invention.
Claim 25 is directed to the method above, wherein the plant disease is caused by any one or more selected from the group consisting of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato, Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum, Phytophthora sojae, Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans, and Magnaporthe oryzae.
Littrell teaches a method of treating bacterial leaf spot caused by Pseudomonas cichorii (title, page 441, right column, paragraph 1). While the method of Littrell is not applied for the treatment of the specific plant diseases recited in the claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it prima facie obvious to do so. Littrell teaches some amino acids (leucine, isoleucine, valine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid) may play an antimetabolite role and block protein synthesis of the Pseudomonas cichorii bacterium, thus resulting in the observed reduced growth (page 444, left column paragraph 2). Therefore, said skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving similar results when applying the same amino acids to other Gram-negative bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas, such as Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans.
Claim 26 is directed to the method above, wherein the composition comprises the branched-chain amino acid, and the branched-chain amino acid comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of isoleucine, leucine, and valine.
Littrell teaches a vacuum infusion method of inoculating chrysanthemum leaves against bacterial leaf spot with the branched-chain amino acids isoleucine, leucine, and valine (page 443, Table 1).
Claim 27 is directed to the method above, wherein the plant body is of a plant comprising any one or more selected from the group consisting of legumes, fruit vegetables, leafy vegetables, and grains.
Littrell teaches a vacuum infusion method of inoculating chrysanthemum leaves (title), which are a leafy vegetable.
Claim 28 is directed to the method above, wherein the method prevents or treats an infection of a plant with a pathogen in the plant body.
Littrell teaches that inoculating chrysanthemum leaves with 400 ppm histidine or aspartic acid reduced severity of bacterial leaf spot compared to control (page 444, Table 2).
Claim 29 is directed to the method above, wherein the method causes systemic induced resistance of the plant body.
Littrell teaches that the application of all amino acids at 40 ppm decreased the time for symptom appearance about 32 hours when compared to the water and bacteria infused control (page 440, left column, paragraph 2).
Claim 30 is directed to the method above, wherein the method does not inhibit plant growth.
Woltz teaches that application of aspartic acid does not inhibit plant growth for 7 days after treatment, when compared to the control with ammonium nitrate (page 94, Table 1).
Claim 31 is directed to the method above, wherein the composition comprises valine, wherein the plant disease comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of leaf spot, bacterial soft rot, Phytophthora stem and root rot, bacterial leaf blight, and rice blast.
Littrell teaches a method of inoculating chrysanthemum leaves with valine at 40 ppm and 400 ppm as a method to treat bacterial leaf spot (title; page 444, Table 2).
Claim 32 is directed to the method above, wherein the composition comprises isoleucine, wherein the plant disease comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of leaf spot, bacterial soft rot, Phytophthora stem and root rot, bacterial leaf blight, and rice blast.
Littrell teaches a method of inoculating chrysanthemum leaves with isoleucine at 40 ppm and 400 ppm as a method to treat bacterial leaf spot (title; page 444, Table 2).
Claim 33 is directed to the method above, wherein the composition comprises leucine, and the method enhances resistance against leaf spot or bacterial soft rot.
Littrell teaches that inoculation with all amino acids, including leucine, decreased the time for symptom appearance about 32 hours when compared to the water and bacteria infused control (page 440, left column, paragraph 2).
Claim 34 is directed to the method above, wherein the composition comprises proline, and the method enhances resistance against leaf spot or bacterial soft rot.
Littrell teaches that inoculation with all amino acids, including proline, decreased the time for symptom appearance about 32 hours when compared to the water and bacteria infused control (page 440, left column, paragraph 2).
Claim 35 is directed to the method above, wherein the composition comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and histidine, and the method enhances resistance against leaf spot.
Littrell teaches the inoculation with all amino acids decreased the time for symptom appearance about 32 hours when compared to the water and bacteria infused control (page 440, left column, paragraph 2).
Claim 36 is directed to the method above, wherein the treating is performed twice or more.
Littrell teaches five physiologically similar leaves were infused in 200 mL solutions and only leaves that were 85 to 100 percent infused were employed, and further notes that when necessary to attain this level of infusion, some leaves were treated a second time.
Claim 37 is directed to the method above, wherein the treating is performed at intervals of 3 days to 15 days.
Woltz teaches Experiment II, wherein the amount of amino acids applied was divided in half, whereby the first half was applied initially and the remainder was applied 7 days later (page 94, right column, paragraph 1).
Claim 38 is directed to the method above wherein the method promotes plant growth.
Woltz teaches that application of glutamic acid to chrysanthemum results in growth equal to 133% height of the upper new shoot as compared with the control with ammonium nitrate (page 94, Table 1).
Claim 39 is directed to the method above, wherein the method prevents or treats a plant disease in the plant body.
Littrell teaches inoculation with aspartic acid and histidine at 400 ppm reduces severity of bacterial leaf spot symptom development compared to control (page 444, Table 2).
Claim 40 is directed to the method above, wherein the method controls a plant disease in the plant body.
Littrell teaches inoculation with aspartic acid and histidine at 400 ppm reduces severity of bacterial leaf spot symptom development compared to control (page 444, Table 2).
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Arcoria whose telephone number is (571)272-8719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571)270-7682. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights