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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of soybean variety CS2145184 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). As such, the effective filing date of Claims 1-20 is 02/06/2024.
Duty of Disclosure
Applicant is reminded of their “Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith” (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 and MPEP § 2001). Information that would be considered material to patentability includes: 1) any progeny, siblings, half-siblings, or other closely genetically related plants that are either co-pending applications or previously published or publicly disclosed, 2) if backcrossing was used in the breeding history, then the recurrent parent should be disclosed along with any publications or public disclosures of the recurrent parent, and what events/loci/transgenes/traits were donated from the non-recurrent parent along with any publications or public disclosures of the events/loci/transgenes/traits or of the donor parent line itself, 3) if the parental varieties were developed via backcrossing this should be disclosed along with the grandparents, including which grandparent was the recurrent parent along with any publications or public disclosures of the recurrent parent and what events/loci/transgenes/traits were donated from the non-recurrent parent, 4) any alternative designations, experimental names, tradenames, etc. for the instant plant, parent plants, and grandparent plants (if backcrossing was used for the parents) should be disclosed. All of this information is material to patentability. If, for example, one of the parent plants is published but with a different name/designation, then the publication should be included in the IDS along with an explanation that the different name/designation is a synonym and how this plant is related to the instantly claimed plant.
Applicant is advised to inform the examiner if any of the soybean varieties that have not been elected from Claim 1 are closely related genetically to CS2145184, the elected variety under examination (e.g., backcrossing in their breeding history utilizing the same recurrent parent, or siblings from the same breeding program, etc.).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, examiner suggests amending the title to recite “SOYBEAN VARIETY CS2145184” in view of the elected species.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not indicate that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification provides a value of “PLTBl” for “Plant Morphological” in Table 11 on pg. 58, wherein the description of that figure states that the traits are listed in the following order: flower, pubescence, pod color, and hilum. It is not clear if the value for pod color is missing or is “B” for brown. If it is the latter, it would appear that the value of hilum is “l”, which is not defined by Applicant. For the purposes of examination, the morphological traits are interpreted as purple flower, light tawny pubescence, no value for pod color, and black hilum
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 3 is interpreted to encompass a plant that was directly transformed rather than a plant which had a transgene introgressed via crossing and/or backcrossing.
Claim 6 recites “… sufficient inbreeding to produce an inbred soybean plant…”. A person with ordinary skill in the art would understand this means ending the recited method with multiple rounds of selfing and/or sibling crossing to fix the genetics.
Claim 14 recites the term “single locus conversion” and Claim 15 recites the term “single locus”. This is interpreted to mean that there is only one locus converted relative to the deposited seeds of the line.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the acronym “NCMA” without first defining it. Any acronyms should have the full name written out with the acronym in parentheses the first time it appears.
Claim 6 recites “…crossing … … with itself…” multiple times, and this is technically incorrect. Crossing involves using pollen from one plant and using it to pollinate the female flower of a different plant; See, for example Claim 14 part (c). This is in contrast to self-pollination.
Claim 12 includes “a site-specific recombination site” in a Markush grouping of traits, and this is not a trait. Applicant is advised to insert “the transgene or locus comprises a site-specific recombination site or wherein” between “…claim 11, wherein…” and “the desired trait”; and delete “a site-specific recombination site” from the list of traits.
All dependent claims thereof are included in these objections for the same reasons as given above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the judicially-created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and/or a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons: The members of the group appear to be patentably distinct soybean varieties with different morphological and physiological characteristics and different genetic lineages. In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claims to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1) (emphasis provided).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 18-19 are directed to a method comprising isolating nucleic acids from a plant, a plant part, or a seed of soybean variety CS2145184 (elected species), analyzing said nucleic acids to produce data, and recording the data (“to a computer readable medium”, Claim 19).
According to MPEP 2106, the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena.
According to MPEP 2106.04, judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas."
In this case, analyzing said nucleic acids to produce data, and recording the data encompasses scientific principles, mental processes, and/or disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas, which are abstract ideas.
Isolating nucleic acids is a lab step. Analyzing said nucleic acids may comprise lab tests (part of analyzing). However, “isolating” and “lab tests” are routine and well-known methods, and do not constitute significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim 20 merely recites using the data but does not recite how to use the data “for crossing, selection or advancement decision”. In addition, crossing or selecting is not recited as a step, only as an intended purpose. Thus, Claim 20 is also directed to the judicial exception (“abstract ideas”).
Hence, as a whole, the claims are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, which are deemed to be a judicial exception. Therefore, Claims 18-20 are directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are not patent-eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 is indefinite in its recitation of “NCMA Accession Number” in combination with blanks, because the accession numbers are missing. Amending the claim to recite the accession numbers, or the assurance that the claim will be so amended, would overcome the rejection.
All dependent claims thereof are included in the rejection for the same reasons as given above.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 18 are indefinite in the recitation of “CS2221559, CS2220368, CS2120404, CS2122713, CS2241232, CS2145184, or CS2146378”, given that a name does not clearly identify the claimed soybean varieties and seed and does not set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Since the names CS2221559, CS2220368, CS2120404, CS2122713, CS2241232, CS2145184, or CS2146378 are not known in the art, the use of the names does not carry art recognized limitations as to the specific characteristics or essential characteristics which are associated with these denominations. In addition, the names appear to be arbitrary, and the specific characteristics associated therewith could be modified. Amending the independent claims to recite the accession number, or the assurance that the claims will be so amended, would overcome this rejection.
All dependent claims thereof are included in the rejection for the same reasons as given above.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear which of the physiological and morphological characteristics of soybean variety CS2221559, CS2220368, CS2120404, CS2122713, CS2241232, CS2145184, or CS2146378 are altered by at least one transgene or locus conferring a desired trait and which are not, because the specification does not indicate which physiological and morphological characteristics of soybean CS2221559, CS2220368, CS2120404, CS2122713, CS2241232, CS2145184, or CS2146378 could be subject to alteration.
All dependent claims thereof are included in the rejection for the same reasons as given above
Claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the commodity plant product produced by the method is intended to be limited to protein concentrate, protein isolate, soybean hulls, meal, flour, or oil, because the term “comprising” recited before the Markush list of products is open claim language, and thus nonlimiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 13 and 17 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.
Claims 13 and 17 are broadly directed to a genus of plants produced by the method of claim 11, and a seed that produces the plant of claim 13. Claim 11, from which Claim 13 and ultimately Claim 17 depend, recites introducing at least one transgene or locus conferring the desired trait into the soybean plant CS2145184 (elected species). It should be noted that Claim 11 does not recite introducing a single transgene or locus. Rather, Claim 11 recites “at least one transgene or locus,” which encompasses an unlimited number of transgenes or locus conversions being introduced to soybean plant CS2145184.
Applicant describes some of the morphological characteristics of CS2145184 (pages 58-60, Tables 11-12). CS2145184 comprises only specific transgenes (MON 89788, MON 87708, A5547-127 and Rps1c) which confer herbicide tolerance and phytophthora resistance and not any other transgenes or locus conversions.
However, the specification does not provide any example of CS2145184 further comprising a transgene or locus conversion, not to mention the common structure feature of the genus of plants or seeds.
Li et al. (Plant Biotechnology Journal 20.6 (2022): 1110-1121) provides that an introduced locus conversion comprising a transgene (ST1 locus) dramatically and significantly changes many physiological and morphological characteristics/traits of the original soybean variety (GR8836), and changed oil content (pg. 1110, Summary; pgs. 1112-1113, Results).
Thus, unlimited number of transgene or loci would dramatically and significantly change many physiological and morphological characteristics/traits of the original soybean variety. In another word, the plant produced by the method of claim 11 would not maintain all of physiological and morphological characteristics of CS2145184.
The structure of CS2145184, and the morphological and physiological characteristics that are connected to the structure does not comprise any further transgenes, thus does not describe the common structure feature of the genus of converted seeds, plants, plant parts, and does not represent genus of converted seeds, plants, or plant parts.
Therefore, the application has not met either of the two elements of the written description requirement as set forth in the court' s decision in Eli Lily and has not shown her/his possession of the claimed genus at the time of the application. To overcome this aspect of the written description rejection, Applicant should, for example, amend Claim 11 to recite a single transgene or locus conversion that would overcome the rejection.
With respect to Claim 17, Applicant claims a soybean seed that produces the plant of claim 13.
Applicant describes soybean cultivar CS2145184 in Tables 11 and 12 on pgs. 58-60 of the instant specification.
Applicant does not describe the genus of soybean plants derived from soybean cultivar CS2145184 encompassing an unlimited number of transgenes or locus conversions.
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.
As such, Claims 13 and 17 are “reach through” claims in which the Applicant has described a starting material and at least one method step, but has not described the resulting product; and wherein 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)). Accordingly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description to support the genus of soybean plants produced by introducing at least one transgene or locus conferring the desired trait into soybean cultivar CS2145184.
Missing 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 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.
35 U.S.C. 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 soybean variety (CS2145184). So, the examiner will evaluate what is an adequate written description for a new soybean 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 of the plant traits as seen in Tables 11-12 (pgs. 58-60) of the instant specification. However, Applicant has not provided the breeding method for the instantly claimed plant cultivar in the instant specification. Applicant has not provided disclosure regarding the parental varieties used to produce soybean variety CS2145184. As such, the breeding history information provided is insufficient; thus, the instant application is incomplete as to the breeding history used to produce the claimed plant variety. If all of the parental varieties used to produce soybean variety CS2145184 were never in the public domain, then the Applicant must state clearly for the record that the parent plants are proprietary, internal soybean lines that have never been made publicly available and have no other alternative designations or names known in the art.
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 U.S.C. § 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 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 variety). If there are any patent applications or patents in which siblings or parents of the instant plant are claimed, the serial numbers and names of the siblings 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).
Missing Biological Deposit
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 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.
The claims are directed to seeds and plants of soybean variety CS2145184 or plants and plant parts derived from said cultivar, and methods that utilize said cultivar. Since the plant is essential to the claimed invention, it must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise be readily available to the public. If the plant is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 USC § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the seeds. A deposit of 625 seeds of the cultivar is considered sufficient to ensure public availability. The specification does not disclose a repeatable process to obtain the plant. It is noted that Applicant states that a deposit of has been made (See pg. 20 of the instant specification) but there is no accession number or date of deposit and Applicant has not even disclosed if seeds were deposited.
(a) If a deposit is ACCEPTED under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then a statement, affidavit or declaration by Applicants, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, or someone empowered to make such a statement, stating that the instant invention will be irrevocably and without restriction released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
(b) If a 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 and MPEP 2402-2411.05, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by statement, affidavit or declaration, or by someone empowered to make the same, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number showing that:
(i) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(ii) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.808(a)(2);
(iii) 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 effective life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(iv) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit (see 37 CFR § 1.807); and,
(v) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
Closest Prior Art
Claims 1-20 appear to be free of the prior art, given the failure of the prior art to teach or reasonably suggest a soybean variety having all the phenotypic characteristics of the exemplified soybean variety listed in Tables 11 and 12 (pgs. 58-60), or methods of its use. The closest prior art in regard to Claims 1-20 can be found in Lee (US Patent Application No. 2022/0264815 A1, effectively filed on 08/11/2021) which teaches soybean variety EE1861244 (paragraphs 0162-0166, Tables 13-14), sharing traits in common with (or does not significantly differ from) instant soybean variety CS2145184, including phytophthora transgene (Rps1c), some herbicide transgenes (MON 89788 and MON87708) flower color (purple), pubescence color (light tawny), hilum color (black), and growth habit (indeterminate). However, soybean variety EE1861244 differs from the instant variety in at least chloride sensitivity (chloride sensitive), aphid resistance genes, glufosinate tolerance (does not have A5547-127), and relative maturity.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L. MCWILLIAMS whose telephone number is (703)756-4704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-17:30.
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.
/KELSEY L MCWILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights