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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and are examined in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/24/2025 is attached to the instant Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The Abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Indefiniteness
Claim 18 is 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 18 is indefinite because it requires the “said pollen and said weed species of interest are selected from the group of pairs shown in Table 1”. Claims must be stand alone and must not refer to tables except for in exceptional circumstances (MPEP2173.05(s)). This is not an exceptional circumstance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Failure to Further Limit
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein said pollen consists of pollen of a different species than that of said weed species”. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, also recites “wherein said pollen consists of pollen of a different species than that of said weed species”. Thus, dependent claim 2 fails to further limit independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIDOR-NILI (Lidor-Nili et al., International Publication Number WO 2019/215581 A1, International Publication Date 14 November 2019).
The applied reference has a common Applicant (Weedout Ltd.), Assignee (Weedout Ltd.), and Inventors (Lidor-Nili, Noivirt-Brik, and Schwartz) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method of weed control, the method comprising artificially pollinating a weed species of interest with irradiated pollen that reduces fitness of said weed species of interest, said pollen being of a different species than that of said weed species of interest and capable of competing with pollen of said weed species of interest, wherein said artificially pollinating is effected under competition conditions with native pollen”.
LIDOR-NILI teaches a novel method for the biological control of weeds of the Amaranth genus (i.e., a method of weed control). The approach is based on artificially pollinating the Amaranth weed using an effective amount of pollen to out-compete the native pollen so as to cause reduction in fitness of the weed (i.e., artificially pollinating a weed species of interest with irradiated pollen that reduces fitness of said weed species of interest; wherein said artificially pollinating is effected under competition conditions with native pollen) (Lidor-Nili, page 6, lines 14-17).
LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims the pollen comprises irradiated pollen (i.e., artificially pollinating a weed species of interest with irradiated pollen that reduces fitness of said weed species of interest) (Lidor-Nili, page 5, line 9; claim 34).
.
LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims the pollen and the Amaranthus species of interest are of different species (i.e., said pollen being of a different species than that of said weed species of interest) (Lidor-Nili, page 4, lines 11-12; claim 20).
In regard to claim 2, LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims the pollen and the Amaranthus species of interest are of different species (i.e., wherein said pollen consists of pollen of a different species than that of said weed species of interest) (Lidor-Nili, page 4, lines 11-12; claim 20).
In regard to claims 3 and 4, LIDOR-NILI teaches that artificial pollination in the field can be achieved by pollen spraying (e.g., wet or dry spray formulations), spreading, dispersing or any other method (i.e., said pollen is comprised in a formulation which allows pollen distribution by artificial pollination) (Lidor-Nili, page 11, lines 3-4). The pollen can be combined with appropriate solvents or surfactants to form a formulation. Formulations enable the uniform distribution of a relatively small amount of the pollen over a comparatively large growth area (i.e., artificially pollinating is effected in a large scale of at least 0.1 acre) (Lidor-Nili, page 58, lines 8-10).
In regard to claims 5-7, LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims the weed may be selected producing pollen that reduces fitness of the weed species of interest by way of subjecting it to a mutagenizing agent; the weed can be exposed to a mutagen or stress; Examples of stress conditions include X-ray radiation (i.e., wherein said irradiated pollen is by X radiation; instant claim 6), gamma radiation (i.e., wherein said irradiated pollen is by γ radiation; instant claim 5), particle irradiation such as alpha (i.e., wherein said irradiated pollen is by alpha radiation; instant claim 7) (Lidor-Nili, page 26, lines 10-17; claims 34 and 35).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, LIDOR-NILI teaches that the pollen is a heterospecies pollen (i.e., wherein at least one of said pollen and said weed species of interest is a hybrid; instant claim 9); the heterospecies pollen is of A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus (i.e., wherein said pollen is of the same genus as said weed species of interest; instant claim 8) (Lidor-Nili, page 31, lines 13-15).
In regard to claim 10, LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims the pollen is non-genetically modified pollen (i.e., wherein said pollen is non-genetically modified) (Lidor-Nili, page 4, lines 32-33; claim 29).
In regard to claim 11, LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims the pollen is genetically modified pollen (i.e., wherein said pollen is genetically modified) (Lidor-Nili, page 5, lines 3-4; claim 31).
In regard to claims 12-15 and 18, LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims that the weed is of the Amaranthus, Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri) and waterhemp (A. tuberculatus); the pollen is of A. Palmeri, the pollen is of A. tuberculatus (i.e., said pollen is of the Amaranthaceae family (instant claim 12); said pollen is of the Amaranthus genus (instant claim 13); said pollen and said weed species are selected from the group consisting of A. Palmeri and A. tuberculatus (instant claim 14); said pollen is A. palmeri (instant claim 15) (said pollen and said weed species of interest are selected from the group of pairs shown in Table 1 (instant claim 18)) (Lidor-Nili, page 7, lines 13-24; claims 32-33, and 38).
In regard to claim 16, LIDOR-NILI teaches and claims that plants of the Amaranthus genus can fertilize cross-species. Hence the present teachings relate to mono-species pollen or heterospecies pollen i.e., pollen of two Amaranthus species e.g., A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus (i.e., said pollen is a hybrid of A. Palmeri and A. tuberculatus) (Lidor-Nili, page 7, lines 25-27; claim 38).
In regard to claim 19, LIDOR-NILI teaches that “pollen” refers to viable pollen that is able to fertilize the weed species of interest and therefore competes with native pollination (i.e., said capable of competing is by fertilizing said weed species of interest) (Lidor-Nili, page 10, lines 4-5).
Summary
No claim is allowed.
However, claim 17 appears to be free of the prior art, given the failure of the prior art to teach or reasonably suggest a method of weed control as recited in claim 1 wherein said weed species of interest is a hybrid of A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus. Accordingly, claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 13), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA MEADOWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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, 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.
CHRISTINA MEADOWS
Examiner
Art Unit 1663
/CHRISTINA L MEADOWS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
