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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending and are examined herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 10 (¶0038) the specification lists the accession number under which Swiss chard variety ‘RHdf-611 23’ is deposited as “X1” and gives the date of the deposit as “DATE”. Additionally, throughout the specification the accession number under which Swiss chard variety ‘RHdf-611 23’ is deposited is given as “X1”. The deposit accession number and the date need to be specified.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite that a representative sample of seed of Swiss chard variety ‘RHdf-611 23’ is deposited under ATCC Accession Number “X1”. These deposit accession numbers are not complete and cannot be used to access the deposited seeds.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the author of a taxonomic name should not be italicized. Please replace “L.” with –L. –.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 14-15, and 19 are indefinite in their recitation of “RHdf-611 23” because the corresponding deposit number is absent from the claims. Without the deposit number in the independent claims, it is unclear what Beta vulgaris L. or Swiss chard is being referred to. Common designations of plant varieties can change over time and the term “RHdf-611 23” is not otherwise known in the art. Thus, the metes and bounds of claims 1, 8, 11, 14-15, and 19 are unclear.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite because of the presence of “X1” instead of an accession number. Because the number is not present, it is unclear to which deposit the claims refer.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-18 depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims above and, as they fail to clarify the metes and bounds of the claims from which the depend, are rejected on the same grounds.
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.
Written Description-Missing Breeding History
Claims 1-24 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 there is no breeding history included in the disclosure (note: a Transmittal Letter is not part of the Specification and cannot provide the written description required to be in the Specification).
Specifically, in the instant application, applicant has only provided a description of the plant traits as seen in the specification (¶0023-0031). The instant application does not describe the breeding history of ‘RHdf-611 23”—the specification is silent as to the parental lineages of variety ‘RHdf-611 23’ as well as the breeding methods used to produce the instantly claimed variety.
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).”
In the instant application, Applicant claims a new plant variety and methods of producing or using the variety. This introduces a question of fact: what is an adequate written description of a plant variety.
In searching for an answer to the above question of fact, a search of the relevant art provided answers on what constitutes written description of a plant variety. 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 as is seen in paragraphs 0023-0031 (pages 5-7) . However, there is no accompanying breeding history in the specification. Because the specification lacks a breeding history and that breeding history is part of the minimum description of a plant variety the applicant has not fulfilled the requirement of 35 USC 112(a) to provide a written description in the specification. 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 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 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).
Written Description—The plants of claim 15 are not described
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 is drawn to a ‘Rhdf-611 23’-derived Swiss chard plant produced by growing the seed of claim 14, but there are no recited limitations on the number of filial generations of seed that may be produced from practicing the method of producing said seed in claim 14 due to the recitation of “comprising” prior to “crossing the plant of claim 2 with a second Swiss chard plant”. The method of claim 14, therefor, encompasses more than a single cross. Thus, in addition to encompassing first generation seeds, the claim encompasses second, third, fourth generations seeds, etc. However, when crosses are made following the production of first generation seed, the genetic makeup of subsequent filial generations will be unknown resulting in unpredictable physiological and morphological characteristics. Thus the claim is drawn to a large and diverse genus. In contrast to this variable genus, Applicant has only described Swiss chard variety ‘RHdf-611 23’ by the morphological and physiological characteristics set forth in paragraphs 0023-0031 (pages 5-7).
The specification does not disclose a representative number of progenies of an F1 hybrid plant to allow one skilled in the art to predict the genetic makeup or physiological and morphological characteristics of the F2 or subsequent progeny as encompassed by the claims, and no identifying characteristics are set forth for the F2 progenies. Thus, 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 F2 progeny and beyond. Thus, the full scope of claimed plants and seeds has not been described and were not in the possession of the Applicant at the time of filing.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar 1991 (CA FC) 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115, 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 the instant case, there is no way that a practitioner would be able to determine if any particular Swiss chard 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)). Accordingly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description to support the genus of Swiss chard plants produced by the method set forth in claim 14. Therefore, Applicant does not appear to have been in possession of the claimed genus at the time this application was filed.
Examiner notes that limiting claim 15 to an F1 progeny of Swiss chard variety ‘RHdf-611 23’ could potentially overcome this rejection, however, such an amendment may result in a duplicate claim warning/objection with respect to claim 8.
Enablement
Claims 1-19 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 all require seed of novel Swiss chard variety ‘RHdf-611 23’.
Since the seed claimed 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.
The specification does not disclose a repeatable 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 a seed is not so obtainable or available, a deposit thereof may satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. So long as the number of seeds deposited complies with the requirements of the IDA where the deposit is made, the USPTO considers such a compliant submission as satisfying the rules under 37 CFR 1.801 through 1.809.
It is noted that the instant specification indicates that a deposit of seeds for Swiss chard variety ‘RHdf-611 23’ has been made at the ATCC under accession number “X1”, but this appears to be a place holder and there is no other indication that the seeds have, in fact, been deposited. The date of deposit is given as “DATE” and there is no record of a viability statement, for example. Further, there is no affirmative statement in the specification that all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent.
If the deposit of these seeds is made and accepted 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 that the seeds 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.
If the deposit has not been made and accepted under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit, meets the requirements 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; and
(d) the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be tested (see 37 CFR 1.807).
In addition, the identifying information set forth in 37 CFR 1.809(d) should be added to the specification. See 37 CFR 1.801 - 1.809 [MPEP 2401-2411.05] for additional explanation of these requirements.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEKSANDAR RADOSAVLJEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-8330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday 8-5:30.
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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at 571-270-0305. 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.
/ALEKSANDAR RADOSAVLJEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRENT T PAGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights