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 .
Status of the Claims
The claims filed 23June2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined on the merits herein. Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 2-3, 6-8, 11, 15, 18-19 are original.
Priority
There is no priority claim of record. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application REMAINS the same as the actual filing date: 19November2024.
Withdrawn Objections and/or Rejections
Objections and/or rejections made of record in the nonfinal office action dated 06April2026 that are not otherwise discussed herein are withdrawn. In particular:
RE ¶ 5: The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment thereto;
RE ¶¶ 6-11: The objections are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments (which are commensurate with what was suggested or requested by the Office); and
RE ¶¶ 12-15: The Indefiniteness rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims (which are commensurate with what was suggested or requested by the Office).
Claim Interpretation(s)
The preambles of claims 5 and 17 are interpreted as limiting the referenced “commodity plant product” to be “food, feed, forage, or syrup”. Absent this interpretation, the meaning of “commodity plant product” would be indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-9 and 14-19 are objected to because of the inconsistent use of “F1” (some claims recite “F1” whereas others do not).
With respect to claims 3-9, and because claim 1 already clarifies that the R20Y2043 variety is an F1 hybrid variety, the following is suggested (please note that the Office previously recommended adding “F1” into claim 9 but the claims filed 23June2026 do not use “F1” consistently = the Office apologizes for conflicting suggestions—consistent use of language across the claims is the goal and Applicant is welcomed to propose an alternative means to that end):
At claim 3 “[[An F1]] A plant, plant part, or plant cell produced by growing the F1 hybrid sorghum variety R20Y2043 seed of claim 1, ….”
At claim 4 “The [[F1]] plant, plant part, or plant cell of claim 3, ….”
At claim 9 “… from the [[F1]] plant, plant part, or plant cell of claim 3.”
With respect to claims 14-19, and further to the indefiniteness rejection herein below (note that claim 10 not recites “A seed derived from F1 hybrid sorghum variety R2072043 ….”), the following is suggested:
At claim 14 “[[An F1]] A plant, plant part, or plant cell produced by growing the seed of claim 10, ….”
At claim 16 “The [[F1]] plant, plant part, or plant cell of claim 14, ….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the inconsistent reference to “F1 hybrid sorghum variety R20Y2043”. The following is suggested for consistency and simplicity:
At claim 10, “A seed ,F1 hybrid sorghum variety R20Y2043 ….”
At claim 14, “[[An F1]] A plant, plant part, or plant cell produced by growing the seed of claim 10, … wherein the plant cell is of F1 hybrid sorghum variety R20Y2043 ….”
At claim 20, “A seed F1 hybrid sorghum variety R20Y2043 ….”
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.
Claim(s) 14 (and, therefore, claims 15-19 which refer thereto) 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 14 is directed toward “An F1 plant, plant part, or plant cell produced by growing the seed of claim 10 ….”. Claim 10 is now amended to be directed toward “A seed derived from F1 hybrid sorghum variety R20Y2043, wherein ….” It is now not clear what the “F1” down in claim 14 means because while the plant/parts are said to be of the “F1” generation (understood to mean that an outcross is performed), the plant/parts are “produced by growing the seed of claim 10” (suggesting that the plants/parts are not generated using an outcross). As suggested herein above, it is recommended that claim 14 be amended as: “[[An F1]] A plant, plant part, or plant cell produced by growing the seed of claim 10 ….” to remedy the indefiniteness.
Conclusion
[Copied from the Nonfinal 06April2026 → ] The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: this application appears to be the first to disclose a hybrid sorghum plant (and plant parts) made by crossing a plant of inbred variety 2PLAS52R and a plant of inbred variety 2PNVG68A. Furthermore, this application appears to be the first to disclose a hybrid sorghum plant (and plant parts) having the characteristics/traits described in Table 1 of the specification. The closest prior art may be identified as MAYOR (US Pat. No. 9668444) which teaches plants (and plant parts) of hybrid sorghum variety PHLVRZJ which differs from that of these claims in at least parentage (breeding history) and the traits of: number of tillers, leaf color, leaf attitude/erectness, leaf midrib color, panicle density, length of central rachis, percent of grain covered by glume, glume texture, and grain mesocarp thickness.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rebecca STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-4:30.
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 at (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.
/REBECCA STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights