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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-40 are pending and examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references in the information disclosure statement filed 10 March 2025 cannot be considered in a manner that speaks to how they apply to the merits of the instant application. In the absence of a breeding history for the instant case and no explanation how the lettuce varieties disclosed in references of the IDS are genetically related to the instant variety, there is no way for the Examiner to consider the importance of these references to patentability of the instant claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification fails to recite breeding history (see lack of written description rejection below).
Paragraph 65 recites the screen capture below suggesting that “CPR” is the acronym for corky root rot. It is believed that this is a typo and instead should recite “CRR.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of The Duty of Candor and Good Faith. 37 C.F.R. 1.56.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 12 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is drawn to a plant produced by the method of claim 10. Claim 10 is not a method claim, so the metes and bounds of claim 12 are unclear.
Lack of Written Description – Breeding History
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 1-40 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.
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 lettuce variety (DELUXE). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new lettuce line. 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 line has a trait descriptions 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. Because the specification lacks a specific breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant line the applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. It is noted that paragraph 65 states that DELUXE was developed from two proprietary experimental lines. This fails to indicate whether the parental varieties had ever been offered for sale, made publicly available, or patented. 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 line.
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, the Specification fails to provide any breeding history. Moreover, the claims indicate Applicant intends to deposit seeds representative of the claimed cultivar. Thus, the claims are not directed to the deposited seeds or plants grown therefrom. The claims are directed to a genus of lettuce 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.
Written Description
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.
Claims 12, 15-16, 21, 25, 30 and 33 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 broadly drawn to seed of Lettuce DELUXE further comprising additional genetics and phenotypes not represented by the deposited seed.
Claim 12 encompasses a plant produced by the method of claim 10 which encompasses additional crosses with DELUXE which would not require at least one half of the genome of DELUXE.
Claims 15-16 encompass plants of higher filial generation than F1 because “comprising” of the method claim 14 is open-ended and indicates that the additional crosses may be produced which can also be considered F1 hybrid seeds but not necessarily share at least 50% of the genome represented by the deposited variety.
Claim 21 is drawn to a plant which does not necessarily comprise at least 50% of the genome represented by the deposited line for a similar rationale as claim 12. It is noted that claim 22 is excluded from this rejection for the language which limits the plant it claims to the additional trait and otherwise all physiological and morphological characteristics of a plant of DELUXE.
Claim 24 is drawn to Lettuce DELUXE further comprising at least one new trait by introduction of a mutation or transgene. Therefore, these seeds and plants encompass plants that are not represented by the deposit and have not adequately been described. The scope of claims 30 and 33 comprise similarly problematic embodiments, given their unlimited nature of the amount or modifications that can be made to the genome of the plant.
These claims are product-by-process claims that read on plants that have not been described.
See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar 1991 (CA FC) 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115, which teaches that the purpose of the written description is for the purpose of warning an innocent purchaser, or other person using a machine, of his infringement of the patent; and at the same time, of taking from the inventor the means of practicing upon the credulity or the fears of other persons, by pretending that his invention is more than what it really is, or different from its ostensible objects, that the patentee is required to distinguish his invention in his specification. In this case, there is no way that a practitioner would be able to determine if any particular soybean plant is infringing the instant claims, and therefore, the public has not been put on notice with a sufficient description of the claimed invention.
These claims are “reach through” claims in which the Applicant has described a starting material and at least one method step, however, they have not described the resulting product, and the genus of products that can be produced by the recited method steps and materials is so large that one of skill in the art is not able to envision the members of the genus. (See Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The Applicant fails to describe a representative number of plants produced by the claimed methods comprising transforming DELUXE. The Applicants only provide inbred plants of lettuce variety DELUXE with characteristics listed in Tables 1-2 of the specification. Plants produced by the claimed method encompasses an undefined number of possible lettuce plants with varying genotypes and phenotypes which have not been described and were not in the possession of the applicant at the time of filing.
Deposit of Biological Material
This application requires public availability of specific biological material to make and use the claimed invention. A rejection under the appropriate sections of 35 USC 112 would have been made but for (1) evidence that the material is both known and readily available; (2) applicant’s statement in paragraph 208 of the specification filed 15 January 2025 indicating that an acceptable deposit of the specific biological material in compliance with the requirements under 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 will be made with a recognized IDA, at or before the payment of the issue fee, in the event that the application should be determined to be allowable; or (3) an acceptable deposit of the specific biological material in compliance with the requirements under 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 has already been made. Because viability testing of all deposits is required before they can be considered to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, applicants are advised to perfect the deposit as early as is possible, and before the payment of the issue fee. Failure to perfect a deposit by the date of payment of the issue fee may result in abandonment of the application for failure to prosecute.
Conclusion
A search of the prior art cannot be completed without knowledge of the breeding history of the instantly claimed line. Thus, patentability also cannot be assessed without knowledge of the breeding history.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R KEOGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2960. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7-4:30, half day on Fridays.
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 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) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights