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 .
Objection to the Disclosure
37 CFR 1.163
The following is a quotation of section (a) of 37 CFR 1.163:
(a) The specification must contain as full and complete a disclosure as possible of the plant and the characteristics thereof that distinguish the same over related known varieties, and its antecedents, and must particularly point out where and in what manner the variety of plant has been asexually reproduced. In the case of a newly found plant, the specification must particularly point out the location and character of the area where the plant was discovered.
35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.-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.
As specific to United States Plant Patent applications, the specifics of 37 CFR 1.164 (reproduced below) are controlling:
The claim shall be in formal terms to the new and distinct variety of the specified plant as described and illustrated, and may also recite the principal distinguishing characteristics. More than one claim is not permitted.
In plant applications filed under 35 U.S.C 161, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 are limited. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 162:
No plant patent shall be declared invalid for noncompliance with section 112 of this title if the description is as complete as is reasonably possible. The claim in the specification shall be in formal terms to the plant shown and described.
The disclosure is objected to under 35 CFR 1.163(a) and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, because the specification presents less than a full, clear, and complete botanical description of the plant and the characteristics which define same per se and which distinguish the plant from related known cultivars and antecedents.
More Specifically:
Page 2, line 16, Applicant should set forth in the specification the patent status for ‘Ortanique’. If patented, Applicant should set forth the U.S. Plant Patent number after the cultivar name. If not patented, such should be set forth after the cultivar name.
Page 3, line 2 and Abstract, line 3, Applicant should set forth in the specification what “CLas” stands for including the Genus and species. Clarification is necessary.
Page 3, lines 3 and 4, Applicant should delete “Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry (FDACS-DPI)” as this recitation constitutes unwarranted advertising (MPEP 1610).
Page 4, lines 3-10, Applicant should set forth in the specification a brief comparison between the instant plant and its closest comparison cultivar. Such need not be in any great detail but should at least distinguish the plants from each other (MPEP 1605).
Page 5, lines 2-23, Applicant should set forth in the specification the age of the plant when illustrated.
Page 5, line 6, Applicant sets forth “CT-197-4” and another name in the illustration. It is not understood if the names are a breeder reference for the instant plant or a different cultivar or something else. Correction and/or clarification is necessary.
Page 5, line 16, Applicant should delete “pedicle” and insert --pedicel--.
Page 5, line 22, Applicant should delete “a leaf” and insert --leaves-- as there are two leaves illustrated.
Page 6, lines 3 and 4, Applicant should delete “FDACS-DPI Citrus Budwood Registration Bureau” as this recitation constitutes unwarranted advertising (MPEP 1610).
Page 6, line 6, Applicant should delete “Flower Council of Holland” as this recitation constitutes unwarranted advertising (MPEP 1610).
Page 6, lines 14-22, Applicant should set forth in the specification the age of the tree when described.
Page 6, line 22, Applicant states “Density: High.”. It is not understood what characteristic Applicant is describing. Correction and/or clarification is necessary.
Page 8, lines 9-15, Applicant should set forth in the specification the typical and observed petiole texture.
Page 8, line 12, Applicant states petiole wing is “Small and narrow”. This recitation does not set forth a shape. Applicant should set forth in the specification a typical and observed petiole wing shape.
Page 8, line 18, Applicant states flowers bearing is either single or clusters. Applicant should set forth in the specification the typical and observed number of flowers per cluster.
Page 9, line 2, Applicant states the instant plant’s flowers are “Fragrant”. The metes and bounds of the term “fragrant” are not clear. Applicant should set forth in the specification what the flowers actually smell like.
Page 10, lines 9-12, Applicant should set forth in the specification the typical and observed pedicle texture.
Page 10, line 20, Applicant should set forth in the specification the amount of pollen produced such as scarce, moderate, abundant.
Page 11, line 7, Applicant sets forth an ovary color designation. However, Applicant left out the alphabetic portion of the color designation. Correction is necessary.
Page 11, lines 8-15, Applicant should set forth in the specification the typical individual fruit weight.
Applicant should set forth in the specification information relative to the presence of the areola of the fruit such as absent, incomplete, or complete.
Applicant should set forth in the specification information relative to the position of the broadest part of the fruit such as towards the stalk end, at the middle, or towards the distal end.
Applicant should set forth in the specification information relative to the glossiness of the fruit surface such as absent, very weak, weak, medium, strong, or very strong.
Applicant should set forth in the specification information relative to the presence of the navel of the fruit such as absent, very rare, rare, occasionally present, or always present.
Applicant should set forth in the specification information relative to the instant plant’s fruit stem including the typical and observed fruit stem length, diameter, texture, and color with reference to the employed color chart.
Applicant should set forth in the specification information relative to the amount of albedo adhering to the flesh of the fruit such as absent, very small, small, medium, large, or very large.
Applicant should set forth in the specification the typical and observed time of maturity of the fruit for consumption.
AB. Page 12, line 22, Applicant states acidity is “1.0”. Applicant should set forth in the specification a measurement unit such as percentage if such is accurate.
AC. Page 13, line 1, Applicant states juice color is “37.5”. It is not understood how “37.5” is a color designation. Applicant should set forth in the specification a juice color with reference to the employed color chart.
AD. Page 13, lines 2 and 3, Applicant should set forth in the specification additional information relative to the instant plant’s seeds including the typical and observed number per fruit, shape, length, width, and color with reference to the employed color chart.
AE. Abstract, line 2, Applicant should delete “orange” and insert --mandarin-- as the instant plant is mandarin plant (Citrus reticulata).
The above listing may not be complete. Applicant should carefully review the disclosure and import into same any corrected or additional information which would aid in botanically identifying and/or distinguishing the cultivar for which United States Plant Patent protection is sought.
Claim Rejection
35 U.S.C. 112, 1st & 2nd Paragraphs
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs as not being supported by a clear and complete botanical description of the plant for the reasons set forth in the Objection to the Disclosure Section above.
Future Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT L BELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0973. The examiner can normally be reached M- Th, 6 - 4:30pm.
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.
/KENT L. BELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1661
/KENT L BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1661
Prosecution Insights