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 .
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 13 August 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, but merely states that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This unpersuasive, since as stated previously, there is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct inventions due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 6-7 are withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a manufacturing method of bee repellent by soaking Anoplolepis gracilipes and/or Dolichoderus thoracicus in a 150% sucrose solution in a weight ratio of 2.5 to 6.3 for at least 4 days, does not reasonably provide enablement for a method of preparing a bee repellent by soaking any type of ant in any sugar solution for any time. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
See e.g. Genentech v. Novo Nordisk, 108 F. 3d 1361, 1366 “Patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable. See Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 536, 86 S. Ct. 1033, 1042-43, 16 L. Ed. 2d 69, 148 USPQ 689, 696 (1966) (stating, in context of the utility requirement, that "a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.") Tossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute enabling disclosure. While every aspect of a generic claim certainly need not have been carried out by an inventor, or exemplified in the specification, reasonable detail must be provided in order to enable members of the public to understand and carry out the invention.” In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970), held that "Inventor should be allowed to dominate future patentable inventions of others where those inventions were based in some way on his teachings, since such improvements while unobvious from his teachings, are still within his contribution, since improvement was made possible by his work; however, he must not be permitted to achieve this dominance by claims which are insufficiently supported and, hence, not in compliance with first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112; that paragraph requires that scope of claims must bear a reasonable correlation to scope of enablement provided by specification to persons of ordinary skill in the art; in cases involving predictable factors, such as mechanical or electrical elements, a single embodiment provides broad enablement in the sense that, once imagined, other embodiments can be made without difficulty and their performance characteristics predicted by resort to known scientific law; in cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, scope of enablement varies inversely with degree of unpredictability of factors involved." (Emphasis added)
Undue experimentation would be required to practice the invention as claimed due to the quantity of experimentation necessary; limited amount of guidance and limited number of working examples provided in the specification; nature of the invention; state of the prior art; relative skill level of those in the art; predictability or unpredictability in the art; and breadth of the claims. In re Wands, 8USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Applicant’s claims are broadly drawn to an a method of preparing a bee repellent by soaking ants in sugar water. However, the specification provides only a few working examples, that of a preparation method of preparing the bee repellent by soaking a two species of ants in sucrose solution at a specific ratio for a specific amount of time. Such variables are critical in developing the bee repellent properties of the resulting solution. Given the number of species of ant (over 20,000) and sugars (innumberable), an artisan would have to test every species of ant along with every species of sugar to determine if the resulting product is able to repel bees as claimed. This degree of experimentation clearly places an undue burden on the artisan of ordinary skill. The specification only provides testing data that the product produced by the preparation procedures and variables disclosed in Table 1..
Consequently, given the unpredictability of the art, the lack of guidance from the specification and the quantity of experimentation needed to practice the claimed invention, the claims are not considered to be enabled for the full scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), states that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed" (See page 1117). The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed" (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
In Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co. 598 F ad 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc}, the Federal Circuit noted the importance of an application's disclosure, stating, “the hallmark of written description is disclosure.” A disclosure adequately describes an invention when it “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1354. “A ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention is not adequate written description.” Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbot Labs, 636 F.3d 1341, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Satisfying the written description requirement “varies with the nature and scape of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F. 3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit explained what is required to meet the written description requirement in Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co:
This inquiry, as we have long held, is a question of fact. Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 575. Thus, we have recognized that determining whether a patent complies with the written description requirement will necessarily vary depending on the context. Capon v Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Specifically, the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Id. For generic claims, we have set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure, including “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue." Id. at 1359.
A written description of a genus in biotechnological arts “requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name” of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 199 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit reflected on Eli Lilly in Ariad while explaining how to sufficiently describe a genus in biotechnological applications:
We held that a sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species fitting within the scope of the genus of structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1568-69. We explained that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials. Id. at 1568 (quoting Fiers v. Revel 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We have also held that functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function. See Enzo, 323 F.3d at 964 (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001). But merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.
A “representative number of species” must typify the entire claimed genus and account for variation between the species of the genus:
[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictably in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated. Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Or. 2004).
In Ariad, the Court also addressed the presence of a genus within a method claim, in Rochester, we held invalid claims directed to a method of selectively inhibiting the COX-2 enzyme by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits the COX-2 enzyme. Id. at 918. We reasoned that because the specification did not describe any specific compound capable of performing the claimed method and the skilled artisan would not be able to identify any such compound based on the specification’s function description, the specification did not provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention. Id. at 927-28. Ariad, at 1373.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the invention had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him or her. The courts have stated:
“To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention.’ Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F. 3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F. 2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, no that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F. 3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient” MPEP § 2163.
Level of Skill and Knowledge in the Art:
The MPEP indicates:
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
What constitutes a “representative number” is an inverse function of the skill and knowledge in the art. Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly.
Applicant has provided evidence of only a few examples of a composition produced by a few examples of methods with the ability to repel bees. This product with the specific composition was produced by a specific method of preparing the bee repellent by soaking a two species of ants in sucrose solution at a specific ratio for a specific amount of time. Such variables are critical in developing the bee repellent properties of the resulting solution
Raskin et al. clearly establish the grave unpredictability of elucidating active ingredients from natural sources:
Multi-component botanical therapeutics also present unique challenges in identifying their active ingredients and in validating their clinical effects. Activity-guided fractionation and reconstitution experiments currently used to characterize compound interferences within a mixture are cumbersome and time consuming…..While chromatographic analysis is often employed to produce biochemical fingerprints used for product comparison…..in the absence of information about the identity of active ingredients, such analysis is hardly reliable, since chromatography provides an incomplete picture of the qualitative and quantitative comparison of a complex extract (p. 3426, col. 2 – p. 3427, col. 1) emphasis added.
There is no known means for predicting the capability of other products produced by soaking any ants with any sugar solution with regard to the ability to repel bees. The skilled artisan could not even relatively predict what other preparation would perform this function. Absent any discussion regarding correlation between structure and function, even the most skilled of artisans would need to guess what other compositions could potentially have the effect(s) listed in the claim(s).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL G FIEBIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 5712720947. 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.
/RUSSELL G FIEBIG/Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights