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 1-16 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election without traverse of Group V, claims 6-13 and amendment to claim 6, in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 are acknowledged.
As a result, claims 1-5 and 14-16 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Claims 6-13 are examined on the merits.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
.
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.
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.
3. Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
.
In claim 6, the recitation “(FERM BP-22418)” renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear instant claim is intended to those deposited seed or seed with a representatively number thereof being deposited as FERM BP-22418. The metes and bounds are unclear.
In claim 7, the recitation “a substantially readially symmetric corolla” renders the claims indefinite. The recitation “substantially” is a relative term with no definitive meaning. It is unclear what is considered as a substantially readially symmetric corolla. The metes and bounds are not clear.
In claims 8, 10-11 and 13, the methods as claimed lack active steps. It is noted that wherein clauses in those claims are not considered as active steps. It is unclear how the methods are defined without any steps. The metes and bounds are not clear.
In claim 7: the recitation, “(or offspring thereof)”, renders the claim indefinite. It is the recitation in the parenthesis is considered as a limitation or not. The metes and bounds are not clear.
Written Description
4. Claims 6-13 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 claims are drawn to a progeny or mutagenized double-flowered torenia plant of FERM BP-22418 that has a flower with 15 or more developed petals arranged radially around a floral axis to form a double flower with a substantially radially symmetric corolla.
Given the nature of mutagenizing method is not defined, the mutations in claimed mutagenized double-flowered torenia plant of FERM BP-22418 is not limited to a single mutation. Further given that it is unclear about breeding history of those claimed progenies, the claimed genus is described only by the phenotypes which is a flower with 15 or more developed petals arranged radially around a floral axis to form a double flower with a substantially radially symmetric corolla.
The specification teaches double-flowered torenia plant of “10868 strain” deposited as FERM BP-22418 by listing some of the morphological and physiological characteristics and by deposit (Specification, pages 28, 52 and 55).
The Applicants do not describe any progeny or mutagenized double-flowered torenia plant of FERM BP-22418. The Applicants also do not describe the morphological and physiological characteristics maintained/not maintained in the mutagenized torenia plant. The Applicants do not describe the conserved genome structure correlated to the morphological and physiological characteristics of mutagenized torenia plant. There is no conserved genome structures correlate to the retained phenotype which is a flower with 15 or more developed petals arranged radially around a floral axis to form a double flower with a substantially radially symmetric corolla. The only structure is the genome of torenia plant of FERM BP-22418 correlates to all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of torenia plant of FERM BP-22418.
The Federal Circuit has recently clarified the application of the written description requirement to inventions in the field of biotechnology. See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In summary, the court stated that a written description of an invention requires a precise definition, one that defines the structural features of the chemical genus that distinguishes it from other chemical structures. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is. The court goes on to say, “A description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.” See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicants fail to describe a representative number of progeny/mutagenized plants in claimed genus. Applicants only describe double-flowered torenia plant of FERM BP-22418 by depositing the seed thereof and by listing some of the morphological and physiological characteristics. Furthermore, Applicants fail to describe structural features common to members of the claimed genus of progeny/mutagenized torenia plants. Hence, Applicants fail to meet either prong of the two-prong test set forth by Eli Lilly. Furthermore, given the lack of description of the necessary elements essential for claimed progeny/mutagenized torenia plants, it remains unclear what features such mutagenized torenia plants. Since said genus has not been described by specific structural features, the specification fails to provide an adequate written description to support the breath of the claims.
Missing Breeding History
5. Claims 6-13 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 instant Specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S. Code § 112(a) because it does not provide a description sufficient to conduct an examination, including search of the prior art, nor does it provide enough description to be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.
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 double-flowered torenia plant of FERM BP-22418. So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new torenia 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 page 52. 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 instant cultivar. When identifying the breeding history, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant cultivar and all other potential names for the claimed cultivar. If Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary cultivar names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary cultivars, especially publicly disclosed or patented cultivar 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). 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 included some breeding history for cultivar 21250789 in the Specification and additional names for one parent in a separate Transmittal Letter communication. This disclosure is insufficient because it does not address all the issues set forth above, and the information provided in the Transmittal Letter with regard to additional names of one parent should be set forth in the specification. Absent the disclosure in the Transmittal Letter, one skilled in the art would not have known that the 16EN311013-26 parent is publicly available, is known by other names and is a prior art cultivar. A Transmittal Letter is not part of the Specification and cannot provide the written description required to be in the Specification. Thus, the breeding history for the claimed cultivar as disclosed in the Specification is incomplete. Moreover, the claims indicate Applicant intends to deposit seeds representative of the claimed cultivar. Paragraph [0072] states that “There is natural variation in torenia caused by genetics and environment.” Additionally, paragraph [0195] states the term “torenia plant” includes any single gene conversions of that cultivar, and said plant has essentially all the morphological and physiological characteristics of the cultivar. Thus, the claims are not directed to the deposited seeds or plants grown therefrom. The claims are directed to a genus of torenia 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 cultivar, including all names for the parents and for the claimed cultivar, are material for patentability. A specification devoid of a complete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to fully resolve questions of infringement.
Applicant is also 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 variety). 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).
Deposit
6. Claims 6-13 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 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.
It is noted that Applicant has deposited seeds for “10868 strain” (page 55). However, Applicant’s deposit information provided does not satisfy the requirements under the Budapest Treaty or 1.801-1.809 for a statement which indicates that upon issuance (of a patent) all restrictions on the public availability to the public of the deposit will be irrevocably removed and additionally under 1.801-1.809 guidance, an indication of viability from the depository. Nonetheless, in the absence of the required statements, Applicant’s deposit statement requires clarification.
In order to certify that the deposit, meets the requirements set forth under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, an affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the seeds 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.
In order to certify that the deposit, meets the requirements 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 inviable.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
However, instant claims are free from the prior art for the failure of the prior art to teach or fairly suggest double-flowered torenia plant of FERM BP-22418. The closest prior art is WO 2011074646, which teach a double-flowered variety that lost the function of the CpAG1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, BRATISLAV STANKOVIC can be reached on 571-270-0305. 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.
/LI ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights