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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-24 are pending and are examined on merits in the present Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed in the paper of September 9, 2024 is attached to the instant Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification (pages 39-40) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
3A. Page 41, paragraph [0176] of the specification: The deposit statement lacks NCIMB Accession No. and the date deposit was made.
3B. It is noted that the paragraph [0002] of the specification does not recite “tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP” as hybrid, whereas partial breeding information provided at paragraph [0174] recites that it is “hybrid 00327 TOP” that was developed from a male and female proprietary inbred line of Nunhems based on yield and adaptability. There seems to be an inconsistency in the specification as to how NUN 00327 TOP is described since most of the specification does not reference that it is a hybrid tomato, paragraph [0002] above is an example but most of the paragraphs before [0174] make it unclear if we are dealing with a hybrid or an inbred. Applicant is requested to clarify it next Office action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1, it is suggested to insert the recitation ---of--- before “the physiological” for clarity of the claimed subject matter.
In claim 5, it is suggested to insert the recitation “wherein a representative sample of seed of said tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP has been deposited under Accession Number NCIMB _______ for the clarity of the claimed subject matter.
In claim 12, it is suggested to insert the recitation ---wherein said regenerable cell of tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP is capable of producing the plant of tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP, and wherein a representative sample of seed of said tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP has been deposited under Accession Number NCIMB _______ at the end of the claim for the clarity of the claimed subject matter.
In claim 13, lines 3-4, it is suggested to insert the recitation ---of--- before “the physiological” for clarity of the claimed subject matter.
In claim 13, it is suggested to delete the first recitation of “otherwise” in line 3 should be deleted for clarity of the claimed subject matter.
In claim 16, it is suggested to change the article “a” to ---the--- before “desired trait” in line 3 for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 19, line 2, it is suggested to insert the recitation ---of--- before “the physiological” for clarity of the claimed subject matter.
In claim 20, part (d), the recitation “a least” should be changed to ---at least--- for clarity of the claimed subject matter.
In claim 23, it is suggested to insert the recitation --- and wherein a representative sample of seed of said tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP has been deposited under Accession Number NCIMB _______ at the end of the claim for the clarity of the claimed subject matter.
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 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.
5. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite in their recitation “Accession Number NCIMB____” because the “NCIMB Accession Number” is missing.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in their recitation tomato variety “NUN 00327 TOP” because the recitation does not clearly identify the claimed tomato variety and seed. Furthermore, the recitation does not set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Since the name “NUN 00327 TOP” is not known in the art, the use of said name does not carry art recognized limitations as to the specific characteristics or essential characteristics that are associated with that denomination. In addition, the name appears to be arbitrary, and the specific characteristics associated therewith could be modified, as there is no written description of the tomato plant that encompasses all of its traits. This rejection can be obviated by amending the claims to recite the NCIMB deposit number.
Dependent claims are also rejected because they fail to overcome the deficiencies of parent claims.
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.
6. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Since the seed of hybrid tomato designated tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP claimed is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a reproducible method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If a seed is not so obtainable or available, a deposit thereof may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The specification does not disclose a reproducible process to obtain the exact same seed in each occurrence and it is not apparent if such a seed is readily available to the public. If the deposit of the seed is made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating the seed have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the seed will be irrevocably, and without restriction or condition, released to the public upon the issuance of a patent would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. A minimum deposit of 625 (25 packets of 25 seeds each) seeds is considered sufficient in the ordinary case to assure availability through the period for which a deposit must be maintained.
It is noted a deposit of the seeds of hybrid tomato variety NUN 00327 that is essential to the claimed invention has been made at the NCIMB (see paragraph [0176] of the specification). But the terms of the deposit is not clear. In the instant case, there is no evidence from NCIMB that seeds of hybrid tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP were actually deposited. The cited paragraph lacks the NCIMB deposit number and date of deposit. Additionally, a copy of original receipt from NCIMB must be provided to overcome this rejection..
If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number showing that
(a) during the pendency of the application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be tested (see 37 CFR 1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become unviable.
Applicant has NOT indicated that Applicant intends to deposit the seeds at the NCIMB in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809.
Accordingly, Applicant needs to provide a signed statement indicating compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, the NCIMB Accession Number and evidence of deposit to overcome this rejection. Compliance with this requirement may be held in abeyance until the application is otherwise in condition for an allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Written Description)
7. Claims 2, 6, 12, 22, 23 and 24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instantly claimed tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP is a F1 hybrid produced by crossing two parents. See specification at paragraph [0174] of page 41. This implies that its genome will encompass heterozygosity at every locus. Additionally, the recitation “a cell” (see claim 2), “a cell culture or a “tissue culture” (claim 6), “regenerable cell” (claim 12), “part” (claims 22, 23 encompass a gamete cell) reads on male and female gametes having haploid number of chromosomes subjected to segregation during meiosis.
Under this scenario, a part of a hybrid tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP plant would be a product of meiotic segregation during the formation of male and female gametes, and genetic reassortment and recombination following pollination leading to seed production from a hybrid plant. This would encompass a genus of structures (plants, parts and seeds) whose structure is unknown and thus their function is either unpredictable or unknown.
It is further important to note that throughout the specification the Applicant concedes that tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP is a F1 hybrid produced by crossing two parents. See for example, specification at paragraph [0174] of page 41. It is also noted that the specification fails to disclose the parents of the claimed tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP.
The specification fails to describe representative structure of the broadly claimed genus and further fails to correlate such structures to a function. The specification fails to establish structure and function correlation for a representative species as encompassed by the breadth of the claims.
Claim 24 is drawn to any tomato plant produced by the method of claim 23, wherein the method of claim 23 comprises modifying tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP, and wherein said modification comprises mutating any target gene which directly or indirectly modifies claimed desired traits.
The breadth of claim encompasses plant(s) with unknown changes in unknown loci as result of mutation, in multiple target genes using gene editing approach.
The breadth of claim encompasses a genus having species with unknown structures(s) whose function cannot be reliably determined.
Applicant’s broadly claimed genus encompasses species whose structure is unknown and hence their function is either unknown or unpredictable.
The only species described is a tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP which is a F1 hybrid with specific number of characteristics as described in Tables 1-2.
The specification fails to describe representative species of Applicant’s broadly claimed genus.
There is no description of the structure required for the recited function, and no description of the necessary and sufficient elements of functional activity of diverse structures encompassed by Applicant’s broadly claimed genus is thus unknown.
One of skill in the art would not recognize that Applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the genus in view of the disclosed species. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes that identify members of the genus, and because the genus is highly variant, tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP is insufficient to describe the claimed genus.
Accordingly, there is lack of adequate description to inform a skilled artisan that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description guidelines published Federal Register/Vol.66, No. 4/Friday, January 5, 2001/Notices; p. 1099-1111.
Given the claim breadth and lack of guidance as discussed above, the specification does not provide written description of the genus broadly claimed. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicants to have been in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
8. Claims 1-24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
35 USC 112 (a) states that “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. In evaluating written description, the threshold question is what is “an adequate written description”. This is question of fact that is evaluated by the factfinder (examiner). MPEP 2163.04 clearly states that “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).”
The instant invention is a new tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP. So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new tomato variety. In reviewing this question of fact, the examiner analyzed how plant varieties are evaluated in the public domain. The review concluded that generally the minimum requirements for an adequate description of a new plant variety has a trait table and genetic information (via a breeding history). In reviewing applicant’s specification there is a phenotypic description as is seen in tables 1 and 2 (see pages 42-48). However, there is no accompanying breeding history in the specification. Because the specification lacks a breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety the applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. The office’s reasonable basis for challenging the adequacy of written description is informed by a review of the following:
With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”.
A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (See “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, USDA, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pv po/application-help/apply, downloaded 05/01/2023, (U)).
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (UPOV, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, April 6, 2017, See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30 (V)).
Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety. (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) (W) and Ex Parte McGowen Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, decided June 15, 2020 (X)). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the Applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. Haun et al. (Plant Physiology, Feb. 2011, Vol. 155, pp. 645-655 (Y)) teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (p. 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (p. 645, right column and p. 646, left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al., J. Exp. Bot., Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 5429-5440, 2015 (Z), p. 5430, left column, 1st full paragraph, and right column, 2nd full paragraph). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed to adequately describe a newly developed plant.
The above factual evidence provides a reasonable basis that a breeding history is necessary written description. With this information the examiner has met the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. (See MPEP 2163.04). Please note, the citations above are not for legal authority, the legal authority relied upon by the examiner is the 35 USC 112(a) statute. The citations are presented to support the finding of fact that a breeding history is necessary to the adequate description of a plant.
Although not directly relied upon for the above written description position, a complete written description additionally helps drive examination and help with infringement verification.
MPEP 2163 (I) states “The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").”
MPEP 2163(I) states “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.)” (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
The breeding history aids in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in the plants are genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plants for assessing potential infringement.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification/drawing to provide the breeding history used to develop the instantly claimed tomato variety. When identifying the breeding history, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instantly claimed tomato variety and all other potential names for the instantly claimed tomato variety. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar/variety/inbred line names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars/varieties/inbreds, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar/variety/inbred information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e., grandparents). Applicant should identify the breeding method used, such as single seed descent, bulk method, backcross method, etc., and the filial generation in which the instant plant was chosen. Information pertaining to the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents as well as the instant plant should be set forth.
Applicant is reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant cultivar/variety). If there any patent applications or patents in which sibs or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the sibs or parents should be disclosed. This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
35 USC 112(a) clearly states “The specification (emphasis added) shall contain a written description of the invention”. In the instant application, Applicant’s attention is drawn to the paragraph [0174] at page 41 of the specification which says:
“The hybrid NUN 00327 TOP was developed from a male and female proprietary
inbred line of Nunhems based on yield and adaptability. The female and male parents were
crossed to produce hybrid (F1) seeds of tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP. The seeds of
tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP can be grown to produce hybrid plants and parts thereof
(e.g., tomato fruit). The hybrid NUN 00327 TOP can be propagated by seeds or
vegetatively.”
Applicant included no breeding history for hybrid tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP in the specification. No additional names for all parent(s) involved in creating hybrid tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP is disclosed in the specification. This disclosure is insufficient and incomplete because it does not address all the issues set forth above
Thus, the breeding history for the claimed tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP as disclosed in the specification is incomplete by just stating “The hybrid NUN 00327 TOP was developed from a male and female proprietary inbred line of Nunhems based on yield and adaptability.” Moreover, the claims indicate Applicant intends to deposit seeds representative of the claimed hybrid tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP. It must be noted that there is natural variation in tomato caused by genetics and environment. Additionally, the specification at paragraph [0083] states the term “tomato plant” includes any single gene conversions of that tomato plant, and said plant has essentially all the morphological and physiological characteristics of the tomato plant. Thus, the claims are not directed to the deposited seeds or plants grown therefrom. The claims are directed to a genus of tomato plants and seeds that are genotypically and phenotypically different from the deposit, and have different traits from those disclosed in the specification. Given these differences, the complete breeding history for producing the claimed tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP, including all names for the parents and for the claimed tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP, are material for patentability. A specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to fully resolve questions of infringement.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-24 are rejected. The closest prior art (US Pat. No. 10264744 (A), Table 1, issued April 23, 2019, filed May 2, 2017)) teaches hybrid tomato variety 72-188 RZ which shares some characteristics (e.g. two or three number of locules in fruit, early maturity, resistant to Fusarium oxysporum f. lycopersici etc.) with Applicant’s claimed tomato variety. However, many of other characteristics are different in two tomato varieties. Additionally, the breeding history (though incomplete) of instant hybrid tomato variety and the hybrid tomato variety of the closest prior art is different because the parents used in breeding the hybrid tomato of prior art does not appear to have been used in producing instantly claimed hybrid tomato variety NUN 00327 TOP.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vinod Kumar whose telephone number is (571) 272-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad A. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA).
/VINOD KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663