DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Petition under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1)
The petition to make the present application special based on Applicant’s age is granted. The application is SPECIAL.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 July 2025.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-28 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 3-13 and 15 are withdrawn. Claims 14 and 16-28 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 14 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, filed 29 December 2025, with respect to claims 14 and 16-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 14 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Fugiel et al. (US 8,835,353), Nakaune et al. (Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2012), Orozco, Jr. et al. (US 2005/0138691 A1), Robinett et al. (US 5,772,723), Gaysin et al. (RU 2 608 226 C2), Liang et al. (CN 104892208 A) and Ru (CN 1986495 A) have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: instant claim 20, line 2, it appears that the claims recite “Solycl2g100110.1, Solycl2g100080.1” but should state “Solyc12g100110.1, Solyc12g100080.1”; and instant claim 23, ln. 2, it appears that the claim recites “Solycl1g007220.2” but should state “Solyc11g007220.2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Instant claim 14 recites specific gene products, but claims 16-18 more broadly recite “RNA”, “mRNA” and “protein”, which fails to further limit the genus recited in claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jadhav et al. (Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 2021; published online 24 March 2020).
Regarding claim 14, Jadhav et al. disclose treating grapes with gibberellic acid 3 (GA3) and analyzing biomarkers such as salicylic acid (pg. 294-296, Materials and Methods; pg. 300, Alterations in the Levels of Endogenous Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 14, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (Plants, 2021).
Regarding claims 14, 24 and 27, Deshpande et al. teach that exogenous application of β-cyclocitral (βCC) primes plants against drought and develops resistance against insect herbivores (pg. 2). Deshpande et al. hypothesized that βCC plays a pivotal role in the regulation of multiple stress responses. To see how it orchestrates the multiple defense responses, we analyzed the transcriptome of βCC-treated tomato plants and compared it with the control plants (pg. 2, Section 2.1). Deshpande et al. teach that to understand the regulatory mechanism of upregulated genes in orchestrating defense response, 92 stress-responsive upregulated genes were subjected to co-functional analysis on TomatoNet. It was found that out of 92 stress-responsive genes, 40 queries were valid. Out of these valid queries, 33 queries were detected in the predefined network on TomatoNet. A total of 18 DEGs were co-functional with the coverage of 0.82. Functional annotations of the 18 genes revealed that all are related to defense response. The genes involved in this network are representating key transcription factors (TFs), namely DREB3 (Solyc04g072900.1), MYC2 (Solyc08g076930.1), MYB44 (Solyc04g078420.1), ERF3 (Solyc10g006130.1), ERF017 (Solyc12g009240.1), ERF1 (Solyc03g093610.1), and ERF 109-like (Solyc10g050970.1), that are involved in tuning abiotic and biotic stress responses in different plants (pg. 9, Section 2.7; pg. 10, Figure 7). Deshpande et al. further teach that plant hormones play a crucial role in plants’ growth, development, and defense responses. Plants produce a bouquet of hormones, namely auxins (AUX), gibberellins (GA), cytokinins (CK), abscisic acid (ABA), ethylene (ET), salicylic acid (SA), jasmonates (JA), brassinosteroids (BR), and strigolactones. Among these, ABA, SA, JA, and ET are the major ones that mediate plant defense response against abiotic stresses and biotic stresses (pg. 12).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to expose a plant to ERF017 (Solyc12g009240.1) and/or gibberellins to prime the plants against multiple stresses. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the application of ERF017 (Solyc12g009240.1) and/or gibberellins to mediate plant defense response against abiotic stresses and biotic stresses since Deshpande et al. teach that these compounds are involved in protecting the plant against abiotic and biotic stresses.
Deshpande et al. do not explicitly disclose measuring the upregulation of one or more biomarkers selected from benzoic acid, succinic acid, and salicylic acid.
However, Deshpande et al. teach that salicylic acid is also produced by plants to mediate plant defense response against abiotic stresses and biotic stresses (pg. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to monitor the upregulation of plant hormones, including salicylic acid, in order to determine the effectiveness of exogenous application of ERF017 (Solyc12g009240.1) and/or gibberellins to prime the plants against abiotic and biotic stresses.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (Plants, 2021) as applied to claims 14, 24 and 27 above, further in view of Robinett et al. (US 5,772,723), Gaysin et al. (RU 2 608 226 C2), Liang et al. (CN 104892208 A) and Ru (CN 1986495 A).
Regarding claim 19, Deshpande et al. do not explicitly disclose exposing the plant of a composition comprising zinc, copper and acid wherein the ratio of copper to zinc is between 1:2 and 1:20.
Robinett et al. teach a plant micronutrient composition for application to agricultural crops comprising a divalent metal salt, citric acid and sodium citrate (Abstract; col. 1, ln. 5-10; col. 2, ln. 52-58; Claim 14). Robinett et al. teach that the divalent metal salts include copper sulfate, zinc sulfate and iron sulfate (Abstract; col. 3, ln. 7-10, 17-20, 48-50; col. 4, ln. 1-3; Examples I-III; Claims 15, 17-18). Robinett et al. further teach that the composition comprises divalent metal salt, citric acid, and sodium citrate in molar ratios of 3:1:1 (col. 3, ln. 46-50).
Gaysin et al. teach compositions for stimulating growth and development of plants includes a mixture of compounds of molybdenum, copper and zinc, citric acid and alkanolamine in molar ratio 1:(1-10):(1-25):(1-100):(4-100) and water in ratio (wt%): mixture of compounds of molybdenum, copper and zinc, citric acid and alkanolamine – 0.5–70.0, water – balance. As copper salts, copper sulfate (copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate) is used; as zinc compounds, zinc sulfate (zinc sulfate heptahydrate) is used (Abstract; pg. 2, para. 1-8; Tables 1-3; Claim 1). Gaysin et al. teach a composition comprising copper (II) sulfate and zinc sulfate in a weight ratio of 1:2.5, and 21 wt.% citric acid (Example 2; Table 1, #2). The composition can be used for foliage spraying of plants, as well as for presowing treatment of seeds and provides high crop yield (pg. 1, Effect; pg. 1, Description; Example 6; Tables 2-3). Gaysin et al. further teach compositions comprising 5.25, 10.5, 17.68, 21 or 22.1 wt.% citric acid (лимонная кислота) (Examples 1 and 3-5; Table 1).
Liang et al. teach a liquid composite trace element fertilizer comprising in weight percentage 0-1.0% citric acid, 0.46-38% iron sulfate heptahydrate, 0.18-3.3% copper sulfate pentahydrate, and 0.25-2.3% zinc sulfate monohydrate (Abstract; pg. 1; and Claim 1).
Ru teaches a clear liquid fertilizer composition comprising 40-100 kg/m3 (i.e., ~4-10% by weight) of a trace element and 80-200 kg/m3 (i.e., ~8-20% by weight) of a chelating agent, wherein the trace element comprises copper sulfate pentahydrate and zinc sulfate monohydrate in an elemental mass ratio of Cu to Zn of 0.1 to 2.0 : 0.2 to 5.0, and the chelating agent comprises citric acid (pg. 1-2; Claims 1-2). Ru teaches that the fertilizer compositions improve growth and development of the plant and also provide the ability to resist disease, drought, lodging, and hot and dry wind, i.e., plant priming (pg. 2).
Ru specifically teaches a composition comprising 10 wt.% citric acid, 0.5 wt.% copper sulfate pentahydrate, and 1.0 wt.% zinc sulfate monohydrate (weight ratio of copper sulfate pentahydrate to zinc sulfate monohydrate of 1:2) (Example 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to expose plants or seeds to Solyc12g009240.1 and/or gibberellin as taught by Deshpande et al., and to further treat the seeds with a composition comprising copper, zinc and an acid to improve growth and development of the plant and also provide the ability to resist disease, drought, lodging, and hot and dry wind, i.e., plant priming, as reasonably suggested by Robinett et al., Gaysin et al., Liang et al. and Ru.
Such would have been obvious because Deshpande et al. is drawn to a method of treatment of plants to promote resistance against abiotic and biotic stresses, and Robinett et al., Gaysin et al., Liang et al. and Ru are drawn to compositions for application to plants, including seeds, to improve growth and development of the plant and also provide the ability to resist disease, drought, lodging, and hot and dry wind, i.e., plant priming. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to want to combine the compositions according to Deshpande et al. with zinc, copper and acid in order to promote resistance against abiotic and biotic stresses.
Claims 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkute et al. (Plant Gene, 2018).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, Karkute et al. teach that transcription factors are key regulatory proteins which influence the expression of stress responsive genes by interacting with conserved cis-elements on promoter region. These down-stream genes in turn impart tolerance to various abiotic and biotic stresses through multiple physiological processes. Among all the stress related transcription factors, WRKY family proteins have been widely studied in past few decades (pg. 8, col. 1). Involvement of WRKY proteins in stress response has been established by their ability to specifically bind to the W-box motif (TTGAC/T) which is frequently found in the promoter region of stress related genes. The role of WRKY transcription factors is well established in the defense and disease responses. They also contribute in tolerance against various abiotic stresses like wounding, drought, cold and salt stress (pg. 8, col. 2). Karkute et al. teach that the WRKY family transcription factors in tomato include Solyc01g079260.2.1 (Table 1). See also pg. 16, Conclusion.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to expose a plant to Solyc01g079260 to prime the plants against abiotic and biotic stresses, as reasonably taught by Karkute et al.
Karkute et al. further teach the upregulation of S1WRKY genes including TCA-element, the cis-acting element involved in salicylic acid responsiveness (Table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to monitor the upregulation of plant hormones, including salicylic acid, in order to determine the effectiveness of exogenous application of Solyc01g079260.2.1 to prime the plants against abiotic and biotic stresses.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkute et al. (Plant Gene, 2018) as applied to claims 14 and 26 above, further in view of Robinett et al. (US 5,772,723), Gaysin et al. (RU 2 608 226 C2), Liang et al. (CN 104892208 A) and Ru (CN 1986495 A).
Regarding claim 19, Karkute et al. do not explicitly disclose exposing the plant of a composition comprising zinc, copper and acid wherein the ratio of copper to zinc is between 1:2 and 1:20.
Robinett et al. teach a plant micronutrient composition for application to agricultural crops comprising a divalent metal salt, citric acid and sodium citrate (Abstract; col. 1, ln. 5-10; col. 2, ln. 52-58; Claim 14). Robinett et al. teach that the divalent metal salts include copper sulfate, zinc sulfate and iron sulfate (Abstract; col. 3, ln. 7-10, 17-20, 48-50; col. 4, ln. 1-3; Examples I-III; Claims 15, 17-18). Robinett et al. further teach that the composition comprises divalent metal salt, citric acid, and sodium citrate in molar ratios of 3:1:1 (col. 3, ln. 46-50).
Gaysin et al. teach compositions for stimulating growth and development of plants includes a mixture of compounds of molybdenum, copper and zinc, citric acid and alkanolamine in molar ratio 1:(1-10):(1-25):(1-100):(4-100) and water in ratio (wt%): mixture of compounds of molybdenum, copper and zinc, citric acid and alkanolamine – 0.5–70.0, water – balance. As copper salts, copper sulfate (copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate) is used; as zinc compounds, zinc sulfate (zinc sulfate heptahydrate) is used (Abstract; pg. 2, para. 1-8; Tables 1-3; Claim 1). Gaysin et al. teach a composition comprising copper (II) sulfate and zinc sulfate in a weight ratio of 1:2.5, and 21 wt.% citric acid (Example 2; Table 1, #2). The composition can be used for foliage spraying of plants, as well as for presowing treatment of seeds and provides high crop yield (pg. 1, Effect; pg. 1, Description; Example 6; Tables 2-3). Gaysin et al. further teach compositions comprising 5.25, 10.5, 17.68, 21 or 22.1 wt.% citric acid (лимонная кислота) (Examples 1 and 3-5; Table 1).
Liang et al. teach a liquid composite trace element fertilizer comprising in weight percentage 0-1.0% citric acid, 0.46-38% iron sulfate heptahydrate, 0.18-3.3% copper sulfate pentahydrate, and 0.25-2.3% zinc sulfate monohydrate (Abstract; pg. 1; and Claim 1).
Ru teaches a clear liquid fertilizer composition comprising 40-100 kg/m3 (i.e., ~4-10% by weight) of a trace element and 80-200 kg/m3 (i.e., ~8-20% by weight) of a chelating agent, wherein the trace element comprises copper sulfate pentahydrate and zinc sulfate monohydrate in an elemental mass ratio of Cu to Zn of 0.1 to 2.0 : 0.2 to 5.0, and the chelating agent comprises citric acid (pg. 1-2; Claims 1-2). Ru teaches that the fertilizer compositions improve growth and development of the plant and also provide the ability to resist disease, drought, lodging, and hot and dry wind, i.e., plant priming (pg. 2).
Ru specifically teaches a composition comprising 10 wt.% citric acid, 0.5 wt.% copper sulfate pentahydrate, and 1.0 wt.% zinc sulfate monohydrate (weight ratio of copper sulfate pentahydrate to zinc sulfate monohydrate of 1:2) (Example 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to expose plants or seeds to Solyc01g079260.2.1 as taught by Karkute et al., and to further treat the seeds with a composition comprising copper, zinc and an acid to improve growth and development of the plant and also provide the ability to resist disease, drought, lodging, and hot and dry wind, i.e., plant priming, as reasonably suggested by Robinett et al., Gaysin et al., Liang et al. and Ru.
Such would have been obvious because Karkute et al. teach that WRKY transcription factors play pivotal role in plant development as well as defense response to various biotic and abiotic stresses, and Robinett et al., Gaysin et al., Liang et al. and Ru are drawn to compositions for application to plants, including seeds, to improve growth and development of the plant and also provide the ability to resist disease, drought, lodging, and hot and dry wind, i.e., plant priming. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to want to combine the compositions according to Karkute et al. with zinc, copper and acid in order to promote resistance against abiotic and biotic stresses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23, 25 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: instant claims 20-23, 25 and 28 recite a method of priming a plant comprising exposing the plant to a plant priming composition comprising one or more gene products selected from the group consisting of Solyc12g049170.2, Solyc12g049150.1, Solyc12g049070.1, Solyc09g075410.3, Solyc12g100110.1, Solyc12g100080.1, Solyc07g017570.2, Solyc08g068680.3, Solyc06g074390.3, Solyc01g067870.3, Solyc11g007220.2, Solyc02g014300.2, Solyc02g082090.3, Solyc12g017870.2, Solyc01g009400.3, Solyc01g067860.3, Solyc05g055320.3, Solyc07g066330.3 and Solyc07g048070.3; and further measuring the upregulation of one or more biomarkers selected from benzoic acid, succinic acid, and salicylic acid. The prior art does not teach or suggest exposing a plant to one or more gene products as claimed, and further measuring upregulation of benzoic acid, succinic acid and/or salicylic acid.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616