Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/071,453

SWEET CORN HYBRID SVSC3795

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 05, 2025
Priority
Jun 10, 2022 — provisional 63/351,145 +1 more
Examiner
BUI, PHUONG T
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Seminis Vegetable Seeds Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
965 granted / 1188 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1228
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1188 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 13-22 are pending and are examined in the instant application. Specification 2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following: The status of parent Application No. 17/871523 should be updated in paragraph [0001] of the specification. In paragraph [0214], the Deposit Information does not indicate that all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent.. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 3. Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 13-22 are objected to because of the following: In claims 1, 15 and 17, “a sample of seed” should be amended to “a sample of seeds” because more than one seed is deposited. Dependent claims are included. Correction is required. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(a) 4. 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. 5. Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 13-22 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. Since the seed of hybrid SVSC3795 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 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. The specification does not indicate that all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent. Evidence of an accepted deposit is requested. 6. Claims 7, 9, 17 and 18 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 7 and 9 lack adequate written description because the plant part comprising a cell of the hybrid plant of claim 1 encompasses a progeny seed or embryo cell. Hybrid SVSC3795 has a genome that is heterologous at every locus. When said hybrid is crossed with an unknown parent, it is unpredictable what genetic material their progenies would inherit. The specification does not disclose a representative number of progenies of hybrid variety SVSC3795 to allow one skilled in the art to predict the genetic makeup or physiological and morphological characteristics of the claimed progeny cells. No identifying characteristics are set forth for the progenies. There are insufficient relevant identifying characteristics to allow one skilled in the art to predictably determine the genomic structure or morphological and physiological characteristics of the claimed progeny cells, absent further guidance. Accordingly, the claimed plant part and cells lack adequate written description. With regard to claims 17 and 18, a corn plant of corn hybrid SVSC3795 further comprising a single locus conversion lacks adequate written description for the following reasons. Hybrid SVSC3795 is heterologous at every locus of its genome. When said hybrid is outcrossed with a genetically different plant to introduce a single locus conversion, it is highly unpredictable what combination of dominant and recessive alleles of hybrid SVSC3795 is present in a progeny plant. When this unknown set of dominant and recessive alleles of the hybrid SVSC3795 parent is combined with a second unknown set of dominant and recessive alleles of the undisclosed other parent, it is highly unpredictable what morphological and physiological characteristics of hybrid SVSC3795 are retained, lost or altered in a progeny plant. Even if the progeny plant is backcrossed to hybrid SVSC3795, due to the heterozygous genome of hybrid SVSC3795, the backcrossed progeny would not regain most the morphological and physiological characteristics of hybrid SVSC3795. Thus, the morphological and physiological characteristics of a plant of corn hybrid SVSC3795 cannot be adequate described. Applicant has no working example of a plant of hybrid SVSC3795 further comprising a single locus conversion. Thus, the claimed plant of hybrid SVSC3795 further comprising a single locus conversion lacks adequate written description. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description Guidelines, Revision 1, March 25, 2008, published online at http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written/pdf. Conclusion 7. No claim is allowed. The “cell” is understood by the Office to be a regenerable cell. The claims are free of the prior art. The closest prior art teaches corn hybrid SVSD7749 which shares at least 22 morphological and physiological characteristics (+/- 10% std. dev.) with hybrid SVSC3795, including type, emergence to 50% of plants in silk days, emergence to 50% of plants in pollen days, 50% silk to optimum edible quality days and heat units (HU), ear height, absence of anthocyanin of brace roots, width of ear node leaf, number of leaves above top ear, degrees leaf angle, marginal waves score, longitudinal creases score, tassel length, pollen shed score, anther color, silk color, fresh husk color, ear length, kernel rows appearance, kernel row alignment, extent of ear tape and cob diameter (Hellewell, K., US Pat. No. 10244701 (A), Table 1). However, at least their parents, emergence to 50% of plants in silk HU, emergence to 50% of plants in pollen HU, 10% to 90% pollen shed days and HU, plant height, length of top ear internode, average number of tillers, average number of ears per stalk, length of ear node leaf, sheath pubescence score, number of primary lateral branches, branch angle from central spike, absence of bar glumes, ear diameter at mid-point, ear weight, number of kernel rows, shank length and cob color differ. 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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. /PHUONG T BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 05, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677789
SOYBEAN VARIETY 01106529
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12672633
Hybrid Tomato Variety 'H2249'
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12653140
HYBRID TOMATO VARIETY 72-CK0622 RZ
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12648539
TOMATO VARIETY NUN 09416 TOF
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12648540
HYBRID TOMATO VARIETY 72-CH0360 RZ
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.2%)
2y 4m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1188 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month