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 1-20 are pending and examined on the merits.
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).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Scope of Enablement
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 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for making and using the claimed hybrid plant, does not reasonably provide enablement for making the hybrid seed without access to the parent varieties of 22CN0178. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claimed invention is not supported by an enabling disclosure taking into account the Wands factors. In re Wands, 858/F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In re Wands lists a number of factors for determining whether or not undue experimentation would be required by one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. These factors are: the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples of the invention, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claim.
The claims are broadly drawn to seeds of Canola hybrid 22CN0178. Note that seeds are a part of the plant of Canola hybrid 22CN0178.
Applicants teach how to use the seeds of Canola hybrid 22CN0178.
Applicants do not teach how to make seeds of Canola hybrid 22CN0178.
The state-of-the-art is such that one of skill in the art cannot predict how person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the claimed seeds with knowledge of the identity of and access to the inbred parents of Canola hybrid 22CN0178.
Given the lack of guidance in the instant specification, undue trial and error experimentation would have been required for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed seeds within the scope of the claims.
Therefore, given the breadth of the claims; the lack of guidance and working examples; the unpredictability in the art; and the state-of-the-art as discussed above, undue experimentation would have been required to practice the claimed invention, and therefore the invention is not enabled throughout the broad scope of the claims.
Scope of Enablement
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for controlling weeds using glufosinate, does not reasonably provide enablement for using any non-glufosinate herbicide. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claims are drawn to methods of controlling weeds in a field having plants of canola variety 22CN0178 with herbicides including the many herbicides listed in claim 4. Table 1 of the instant specification indicates that the only herbicide tolerance that the variety has is glufosinate resistance. See screen capture below. Thus, the claimed methods are not broadly enabled for controlling weeds with any of the non-glufosinate herbicides.
PNG
media_image1.png
78
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lack of Written Description
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 8 and 16 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is drawn to an inbred plant made by selfing the plant of claim 1 and its descendants to produce an inbred plant. The plant of claim 1 is a hybrid plant, which means that the plant contains two distinct haploid genomes. During meiosis, crossing over and independent assortment occurs. This means that each selfed or outcrossed progeny plant is genotypically distinct which can result in a population of plants that widely varied phenotypically. Claim 16 has the same issue being drawn to F2 plants.
Also, historically, The Office does not allow claims to filial generations beyond F1 of an inbred variety, which in the instant case is the deposited seed. Applicant should know this as they have been pursuing patents to plant varieties for some time.
The instant disclosure describes Canola hybrid 22CN0178.
These descriptions are insufficient, because by virtue of crossing over and independent assortment a population of plants that widely varied phenotypically is claimed.
Given the broad scope of the claimed genus, the lack of working examples and the failure to describe the structures required to confer the claimed function, one of skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus at the time of filing.
Lack of Breeding History
Claims 1-20 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.
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).
In the instant application, a full examination cannot be conducted because applicant failed to provide the breeding history for the instantly claimed plant variety. Specifically, applicant claims a new hybrid canola variety. A plant variety is defined by both its genetics (breeding history) and its traits. In the instant application, applicant has only provided a description of the plant traits as seen in the specification. The instant application is silent as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety.
The criticality of a breeding history in assessing the intellectual property rights of a plant is well recognized in the field of plant breeding. With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”. Other bodies that grant intellectual property protection for plant varieties require breeding information to evaluate whether protection should be granted to new varieties. 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” by the USDA reference to Exhibit A). Additionally, 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 (See UPOV EDV Explanatory Notes 14 and 30). While the USPTO, USDA, and UPOV have different laws governing intellectual property rights, all recognize that a breeding history is an essential part of adequate description of the plant sought to be protected.
The breeding history is also necessary to aid in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in plants where genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety. 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) and Ex Parte McGowen- Board Decision in Application 14/996,093). 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.
Moreover, a specification devoid of a 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 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.
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 teaches that the assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. (See Haun Page 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. (See Haun Page 645 right column and Page 646 left column). In addition to genetic variation, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (See Großkinsky page 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 at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
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 variety or 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 variety. For example, if applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line 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 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 Rejection
Claims 1-20 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 claims contain 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. See pages 56-57 of the Specification filed 15 January 2025.
Since the seed and/or plant claimed is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a reproducible method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If a seed, or seed of the claimed plant is not so obtainable or available, a deposit thereof may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The specification does not disclose a reproducible process to obtain the exact same seed in each occurrence and it is not apparent if such a seed is readily available to the public. If the deposit of the seed is made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by the Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating the seed have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the seed 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. A minimum deposit of 625 seeds is considered sufficient in the ordinary case to assure availability through the period for which a deposit must be maintained.
If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria 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 unviable.
Applicant has NOT indicated that Applicant intends to deposit the seeds at the ATCC in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. Accordingly, Applicant needs to provide a signed statement indicating compliance with 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 indicating that all restrictions will be irrevocably be removed upon issuance of a patent, the ATCC Accession No. and evidence of deposit to overcome this rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 M-Th 7-4:30, half day on Fridays.
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.
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
