CTNF 18/861,930 CTNF 77943 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 3, 6, 15, 17, 28, 32 and 34 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. Claim 3 is indefinite because it recites two ranges, about .3gm-10kg and 2gm-1kg. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation about 1 nanometer and about 100 micrometers, and the claim also recites is 10 micrometers which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 15 is indefinite because the claim recites specific ratios followed by a range of “any ratio between 1:20 and 50:1”. Hence, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 17 is indefinite because it recites three ranges 0.1ml-10L, 10ml-1500ml(1.5L), and 100ml-1250ml(1.25L). Hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 28 is indefinite because it is unclear how the breathable barrier comprises “fresh or treated pollen” since the breathable barrier is supposed to seal the container (claim 1d). In addition, the claim recites three surface area ranges, hence the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 32 is indefinite because it recites three ranges and a specific temperature which is not a range. Hence, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 34 recites multiple ranges and a specific storage time. Hence, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 15, 17, 23, 25, 26, 32 and 34 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Etter et al (U.S. 2019/0008144) . Etter et al discloses a method of storing viable maize pollen (Para. [0002] a novel method for increasing the overall viability and fertility of pollen; Para. [0075] maize pollen), comprising: (a) collecting an amount of fresh maize pollen (Para. [0095]). Etter et al discloses pooled pollen was hand collected from maize tassels; Para. [0002] fresh pollen or pollen); (b) optionally applying a carrier to the collected maize pollen of step a) to obtain an amount of treated maize pollen (Para. [0095]). Etter et al discloses pooled pollen was mixed at a 1:3 volume ratio with each additive from Table 1. Etter et al discloses a control sample was also prepared containing just pollen without any storage medium); (c) placing the amount of fresh maize pollen or the amount of treated maize pollen in a container (Para. [0095]). Etter et al discloses that the control samples and sample mixtures of pollen and particulate were stored in 50 mL centrifuge tubes); (d) sealing the container with a breathable barrier (Para. [0095]). Etter et al discloses the control samples and sample mixtures were stored in filter capped 50 mL centrifuge tubes, the filter caps have a mesh element that allows passage of air without spilling the pollen); and (e) storing the product of step d) in a refrigerated environment (Para. [0095]). Etter et al discloses the sealed container was stored in a growth chamber at 3°C. Etter et al discloses this maintains a microclimate that is cold and slightly dry for the storage of the filter capped tubes). Etter et al discloses that the amount of fresh maize pollen or the amount of treated maize pollen is 0-20 day old or more at paragraph [0088] specifically 4-day old pollen. Etter et al discloses the amount of fresh maize pollen or treated maize pollen is about 0.3gm to 10kg at paragraph [0103], specifically 3 grams. Etter et al discloses storing control sample and sample mixtures of pollen and articulate in a filter capped 50 ml centrifuge tubes at paragraph [0095]. Etter et al discloses that the filter caps have a mesh element that allows passage of air without spilling the pollen. Etter et al discloses storing the pollen at 3 degrees Celsius which is between 1-10. Etter et al discloses mixing the pollen and additive at a ratio of 1:3 at paragraph [0095]. Hence, Etter et al had previously disclosed the claimed invention . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 20, 28, 36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etter et al (U.S. 2019/0008144) in view of Albertsen et al (U.S. 2016/0010109) . Given that claim 1 is anticipated by Etter et al , it would likewise be obvious over Etter et al . Claims 5 and 6 would have been prima facie obvious over the teachings of Etter et al who teach using an amorphous silica in Table 2 Sipernat ® 340 which has 20-micron average particle size. While Etter et al do not teach crystalline silica, Sipernat ® 340 would have been considered a functional equivalent to the crystalline silica of instant claim 5. Claim 10 would have been obvious because the metallic powder would have been considered a design choice. Etter et al teach that different additives were used to test for improved flowability of pollen for use in mechanical application of the pollen in a field setting at paragraph [0099]. Etter et al states at paragraph [0068] that “Routine experimentation can be conducted in accordance with examples 4 and 5 to determine the best particle or particle blend for storage purposes”. Claim 20 would have been obvious because Etter et al teach solid particles useful for the invention includes activated charcoal. The function of the desired result of CO 2 sequestration would have been an inherent property of using activated charcoal. Claim 28 has been found indefinite as addressed above. If the Examiner interprets “a surface area of 0.49 mm 2 ” as related to the breathable barrier, the surface area of the breathable barrier would be relative to the opening of the container and thus an obvious optimization of said barrier, and thus obvious in view of the teachings of Etter et al . At claims 36 and 38-40, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Etter et al in view of Albertsen et al who teach that before the effective filing date of the instant claims it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine events Bt11, GA21 and MIR162 in a corn plant on page 7, paragraph [0076]. It would have been obvious that such corn plants would comprise the transgenes in the pollen, especially if the plant was homozygous for each of the transgenes. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H KRUSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3:30PM. 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, Amjad 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 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. /David H Kruse/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663 Application/Control Number: 18/861,930 Page 2 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 18/861,930 Page 3 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 18/861,930 Page 5 Art Unit: 1663 Application/Control Number: 18/861,930 Page 6 Art Unit: 1663
Prosecution Insights