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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 May 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 9-10, and 13 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 13 remains withdrawn
Claims 1 and 9-10 have been hereby examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
References listed on the IDS’s, filed 13 June 2025 have been considered.
Withdrawn Claim Objections/Rejections
Rejection of claims 1 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khattab et al (2018) and Kwak et al (2017). has been withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments filed 27 May 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strano et al (2016. WO 2017/079676. Nanobionic light emitting plants) and Khattab et al (2019. Luminescent plant root: A step toward electricity-free natural lighting plants. Journal of Molecular Structure: 249-253; Available online 29 August 2018)
The claims are broadly drawn to a plant comprising a plant structure and a phosphorescent light capacitor in a portion of the plant structure wherein the phosphorescent light capacitor comprises a phosphorescent nanoparticle of between 162.3 nm to 944 nm size, with a charge of 0.57 +/- 0.21 mV, wherein the phosphorescent light capacitor is capable of storing captured light and capable of glowing in dark conditions; wherein the phosphorescent light capacitor is distributed inside the plant’s leaves in spongy mesophyll region without penetration inside the plant’s cell and wherein the silica coated phosphorescent nanoparticle is a strontium aluminate nanoparticle.
Strano et al teach a method to produce photosynthetic organisms using nanobionic engineering [entire document]. Strano et al teach that the photosynthetic composition can be localized in an organelle, a cell or a tissue, including the mesophyll of the plant (which reads on distributed in the plant’s leaves in spongy mesophyll region without penetration inside the plant’s cell) [page 2, lines 6-7 and 10]. Strano et al teach the nanoparticles, the size, shape and potential of the particles and the distribution within the plant tissue (FIG 1A and 1B; para. Bridging pages 3-4]. FIG 1A-2 shows the PLGA-Luciferin (PLGA-LH) nanoparticle with a diameter of 200-300 nm and a Zeta potential of 0.48 mV [which reads on a phosphorescent nanoparticle of between 162.3 nm to 944 nm size, with a charge of 0.57 +/-0.21 mV]. FIG 4A-I show the light emitting plant and illumination. Strano et al teach delivering a composition into a plant and localizing the composition in a tissue of the plant including the mesophyll [page 7, lines 12-19; FIG 1A]. Strano et al teach that the nanoparticles can include silica (page 8, lines 5-7). Strano et al teach that one advantage of this nanobionic approach is that the function of specific regions within tissues can be targeted and that some nanoparticles are located in guard cells, but mostly in air spaces surrounding sponge mesophyll cells (page 14, lines 8-21). Strano et al teach that any variety of nanoparticles can be use which include photoluminescent nanoparticle and that the photoluminescent nanoparticles exhibit phosphorescence [which reads on phosphorescent nanoparticles]. Strano et al also teach that a nanoparticle can include noncarbon nanoparticles including ceramic with one or more metals including strontium and aluminum.
Although Strano et al teach that the nanoparticles can include strontium and aluminum, Strano et al does not specifically teach wherein the silica coated phosphorescent nanoparticle is a silica coated strontium aluminate nanoparticle.
Khattab et al teach introducing a strontium aluminate pigment phosphor doped with europium and dysprosium into a plant root [entire document]. Lanthanide-doped strontium aluminate are distinguished by photoluminescence characteristics and their ability to store light energy which is gained by their excitation when exposed to an illumination light supply [page 249, left col., paras. 1 and 2]. A photoluminescent material is composed of crystals of elemental aggregations and energy traps and after the crystals have been excited by a light source, the light can be cut off, and the crystals will stay excited and continue to discharge light which is typically supported by energy traps such as Eu(II) and Dy(III) to leading to an extended phosphorescence period (which reads on wherein the phosphorescent light capacitor is capable of storing captured light and capable of glowing in dark conditions) [page 249, rt. col. para. 1]. The role of Dy(III) was to motivate the formation of hole traps which can be thermally discharged after the illumination source was removed and the discharged holes transfer to Eu(II) and return back to ground state of Eu(II) producing prolonged light emission [page 252, lf. col., para. 1]. The treated artichoke roots exhibited phosphorescent properties under UV light and after illumination of the roots under ultraviolet light for 5 min, the UV light supply was turned off, and the fading emissions was recorded as a function of time at the wavelength of maximum emission [page 250, rt. col., para. 3]. The phosphorescent effects were confirmed by excitation and phosphorescence emission spectra, through the appearance of two broad and strong excitation and emissions peaks in the ultraviolet [para. Bridging pages 250-251]. The phosphorescence profile of luminescent roots showed characteristics different than that of the solid material which possesses only one emission peak at 520 nm [para. Bridging pages 250-251; Figs. 1-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Strano and Khattab et al and use strontium aluminate as taught by Khattab as the nanoparticle in the phosphorescent light capacitor as taught by Strano et al. Strano et al teach a silica coated nanoparticle of between 162.3 nm to 944 nm size, with a charge of 0.57 +/1 0.21 mV that is distributed inside the plant’s leaves in the spongy mesophyll region without penetration inside the plant’s cell. Straneo et al also teach that the composition produces phosphorescent light in plant tissues. Khattab et al teach that lanthanide-doped strontium aluminate are distinguished by photoluminescence characteristics and their ability to store light energy which is gained by their excitation when exposed to an illumination light supply. Khattab et al further teach that the photoluminescent material is composed of crystals of elemental aggregations and energy traps and after the crystals have been excited by a light source, the light can be cut off, and the crystals will stay excited and continue to discharge light which is typically supported by energy traps such as Eu(II) and Dy(III) to leading to an extended phosphorescence period. One would have been motivated to use strontium aluminate as the silica coated nanoparticle because Strano et al teach that a nanoparticle can include noncarbon nanoparticles including ceramic with one or more metals including strontium and aluminum. One would also have been motivated to use strontium aluminate as the silica coated nanoparticle to capture and store the light energy produced by the phosphorescent light produced in the plant tissues (Strano et al) and extend the phosphorescence period as taught by Khattab et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success given the success of Strano et al and their suggestion to include strontium and aluminum in the phosphorescent nanoparticle and the success of the strontium aluminate for capturing and storing light and later glowing in the dark as shown with teaching of Khattab et al.
Applicant’s Arguments dated 24 October 2024
Applicant’s urge that the neither Kwak et al or Khattab et al teach phosphorescent nanoparticles being targeted to the spongy mesophyll and that the teaching of the combined references would lead one of skilled in the art to designed phosphorescent nanoparticles to enter into the plant cells, to take advantage of endogenous plant energy-generating processes. Applicants also amended the the independent claim to recite size, charge and function limitations of the phosphorescent nanoparticles.
These amendments required further search and consideration and resulted in a new 103 rejection that addresses each and every limitation as currently amended. The new rejection does not rely on previously cited art to teach the phosphorescent nanoparticle location in the spongy mesophyll region without penetration inside the plant’s cell.
Conclusion
No claim is allowable.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M REDDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0298. The examiner can normally be reached 730-6 Monday-Thursday.
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, Shubo (Joe) Zhou can be reached on (571) 272-0724. 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.
/KAREN M REDDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1661