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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Federal Circuit has clarified the written description requirement. The court stated that a written description of an invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name, of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials". University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court also concluded that "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not description of that material". Id. Further, the court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, Patent Owner must describe a representative number of the species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to "visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus". Id.
Applicant claims a hybrid pepper plant SVHA0087.
Applicant describes hybrid pepper plant SVHA0087 with respect to physiological and morphological characteristics. (Table 1). Applicant provides a partial breeding history, naming the parents but failing to describe the breeding history for either parent, which is reasonably required to describe the recited plants and seeds and methods of use thereof. The parental germplasm is important to understanding the claimed hybrid and the breeding history of at least one parent is required to adequately describe the claimed hybrid.
The requirement 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 the description should include
a complete detailed description of the plant and the characteristics thereof that distinguish the same over related known varieties . . . The specification should also include 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. USDA (2023) Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pvpo/application-help/apply, accessed 1 May 2023).
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 (UPOV (2017) Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, n 14 & n. 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, 2020). 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 complete breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history aside from one parent, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotypes of the claimed plant 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. The assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false. Haun et al. (2011) Plant Physiol. 155:645-55; see p. 645, l col.
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 (Id., p. 645, R col., para. 2, to 646, L col., para. 3). In addition, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. Großkinsky et al. (2015) J. Exp. Bot. 66:5429-40 (see p. 5430 L col., para. 2, and R col., para. 2). 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 should amend the specification to identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant hybrid and the breeding history of at least one parental line.
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 either 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(s) 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 cultivar). 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).
Thus 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 e.g. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
See also Vas-Gath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 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 [or her] 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.” Vas-Gath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Hence, Applicant has not, in fact, described the claimed invention within the full scope of the claims, and the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The claims appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art is Berke (US 10750694 B1), which discloses Pepper Hybrid SV2752HC. Although hybrid SV2752HC and the instantly claimed hybrid share many traits, they differ in several characteristics including fruit flesh thickness and fruit shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A LOGSDON whose telephone number is (571)270-0282. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5:00 pm.
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.
/CHARLES LOGSDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights