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 .
Applicant Response
Applicant's response, filed 03/24/2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claim 15 is canceled.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are pending.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to US Provisional Application 63/091433 , filed 10/14/2020. As such, the effective filing date assigned to each of claims 1-14 and 16 is 10/14/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 12/08/2025 and 03/25/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of amendments to the specification filed 03/24/2026.
Specification
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn in view of amendments filed 03/24/2026.
The disclosure remains objected to because it still contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (e.g. para 0043, “https://”). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Newly recited portions are necessitated by amendments.
Response to applicant’s arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not found to be persuasive as the amendments have introduced the issues discussed above.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1, 3, 8-9, 14, and 16 are withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 03/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, is withdrawn in view of cancelation of the claim in the claim amendments filed 03/24/2026.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are 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. Newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendments or after further consideration.
Claims 1 and 16, and all claims dependent thereon, recites the limitations “the amount of receptive stigmas” in step i, and “the effect of intentionally applied pollen” and “the number of receptive stigmas” in step ii. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as an amount of receptive stigmas, an effect of intentionally applied pollen, and a number of receptive stigmas are not previously recited in the respective claims.
Furthermore, claim 1 and 16, and all claims dependent thereon, are indefinite because it is unclear if the number of receptive stigmas used in step ii is the same amount of receptive stigmas generated in step i. For the purposes of examination, the number of receptive stigmas is interpreted to be the generated amount of receptive stigmas.
Claims 2-14 are also indefinite for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 1, on which they depend.
Claim 6, and all claims dependent thereon, recites the limitation "the group”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as none of claims 1-5, on which claim 6 depends, recites a group.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the amount of time” in step a, “the amount of heat units” in step b, “the amount of pollen shed” in step c, “the rate at which said plant that will shed pollen sheds pollen” in step (d), and “the number of time steps” in step (e), related to pollen and pollen shed. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as none of claims 1-5 and 8, on which claim 9 depends, recites these limitations.
Response to applicant’s arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not found to be persuasive as they do not address the issues discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-14 and 16 are found to be free from a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims recite statutory subject matter, specifically a process (Step 1: YES). Under Step 2A, while the claims recite abstract ideas, such as modelling data, (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES), the steps of intentionally pollinating said population of said crop plant during at least one of said time steps during which intentional pollination is modeled to provide a greater harvest of said seed, grain, or fruit of interest than other of said time steps, which integrate the recited judicial exceptions into practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (Step 2A,Prong 2: Yes). Therefore the claims are patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103, is withdrawn in view of cancelation of the claim in the claim amendments filed 03/24/2026.
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 1-6, 8-12 and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizaso et al. (Crop Science 2003, 43: 892-903; hereafter referred to as a Lizaso) in view of Cárcova et al. (Crop Science 2000, 40: 1056-1061; hereafter referred to as Cárcova). Newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendments or after further consideration.
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Lizaso discloses model prediction of kernel number per plant for yield simulation in maize (Zea mays L.) and mathematically describes the processes of floral anthesis (i.e., pollen shed and silk emergence) and pollination, and further discloses that the procedure for estimating kernel number per hectare is based on a quantitative description of maize flowering characteristics on a field scale using amount and temporal distributions of pollen shed and exserted silks. (abstract; p 893, col 1, para 3-4).
Lizaso discloses mathematical functions were fit to temporal profiles of plant population dynamics for pollen shed and silk exsertion measured in the field (i.e. ingesting, as input data, reproductive maturity data) (p 893, col 1, para 4).
Lizaso further discloses modeling the data by determining the amount and temporal distribution of receptive silks, a percentage of kernel formed by flowers with exposed silks from the daily rate of pollen shed, and calculating kernel number per hectare as a measure of the dynamics of silk numbers available and receptive to pollination (p 893, col 2, para 4-p 894, col 2, para 1; p 898, col 1, para 2-col 2, para 1; fig 1). Lizaso notes that procedures used to document the daily rate of pollen shed and daily progress of silk exsertion included preventing pollination at all other times by covering the ears with a glassine bag, and that each exposed silk translated mathematically into a potential kernel, depending on its timely pollination (i.e. modeling included the effect of intentionally applied pollen), thereby generating one or more time steps during which intentional pollination is modeled to provide a greater harvest of kernels (p 894, col 2, para 4; p 898, col 2, para 2; fig 4-6).
With respect to claim 1, although Lizaso does not disclose the modeling steps are computer implemented, the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)).((See MPEP 2144.04 (III).) Therefore, it would have been it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a computer to automate the modeling steps of Lizaso.
Furthermore, with respect to claims 1 and 16, Lizaso does not appear to disclose intentionally pollinating the population of corn during which pollination is modeled to provide a greater harvest of kernels than at other time steps.
However, the prior art to Cárcova, in the same field of endeavor, discloses synchronous pollination through hand pollination with fresh pollen of all exposed silks on apical and sub-apical ears improved kernel number per plant and the floret fertility index (FFI = number of kernels/number of pollinated silks) (title; abstract; p 1057, col 2, para 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps for modeling pollen and silk exsertion dynamics to predict kernel set as disclosed by Lizaso, by hand-pollinating the silk, as disclosed by Cárcova, when the model predicts greatest silk exsertion because synchronous pollination through hand pollination of all exposed silks on apical and sub-apical ears improved kernel number per plant and the number of kernels per number of pollinated silks as disclosed by Cárcova. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because using the results of the model to inform artificial pollination for greater harvest would not impede the analysis of Lizaso.
With respect to claim 2, Lizaso discloses modelling pollen shed per day (p 893, col 1, para 5-col 2, para 3; fig 2). Lizaso also discloses modeling pollen shed includes using daily values for pollen shed (p 893, col 1, para 5).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Lizaso discloses modelling the amount and temporal distribution of pollen and modeling the relationship between kernel set/total number of silks and daily pollen shed rate for each day (p 893, col 1, para 5; fig 7) .
With respect to claim 5, Lizaso discloses the crop is maize (title).
With respect to claim 8, Lizaso discloses the daily percentage of plant population that has started silking and daily number of silks exserted from the apical ear, as well as the seasonal dynamics of silk exsertion (i.e. the rate at which crop exserts stigmas that are receptive to pollen) (fig 4-5).
With respect to claim 8, Lizaso discloses silks are receptive to pollen for 6 days (p 894, col 2, para 1).
With respect to claims 9, Lizaso discloses modeling pollen shed includes using daily values for pollen shed were normalized to daily pollen shed per fertile plant (i.e. rate at which plant sheds pollen) (p 893, col 1, para 5).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Lizaso discloses patterns and timing of pollen shed and silk appearance also can be modified readily to predict kernel set under stress conditions, such as high temperature from tassel initiation to kernel set, which shortens the duration of pollen shedding, drought at or before tasseling, which delays silk emergence, and flooding during the early vegetative growth which delays silking more than tasseling (i.e. stresses that can result from differences in growing environments, such as fields in different location), and that these environmental responses can be simulated by altering parameters in equations 1 and 4 (p 901, col 1, para 3-col 2, para 1).
With respect to claim 12, since Lizaso produces seasonal dynamics for days of the year (i.e. a calendar), and states patterns and timing of pollen shed and silk appearance also can be modified readily to predict kernel set under stress conditions and environmental responses can be simulated by altering parameters in equations 1 and 4, it would be possible for Lizaso to generate a calendar for each growing environment to model intentional pollination to provide a greater harvest than at other time steps (fig 2-7; p 901, col 1, para 3-col 2, para 1).
With respect to claim 14, while Lizaso does not appear to explicitly disclose gathering weather data, Lizaso does disclose that patterns and timing of pollen shed and silk appearance also can be modified readily to predict kernel set under stress conditions, such as high temperature from tassel initiation to kernel set, which shortens the duration of pollen shedding, drought at or before tasseling, which delays silk emergence, and flooding during the early vegetative growth which delays silking more than tasseling, and that these environmental responses can be simulated by altering parameters in equations 1 and 4 (p 901, col 1, para 3-col 2, para 1). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to gather weather data in order to make predictions under those weather conditions that affect the environmental stress responses of the modeled crops of Lizaso, as Lizaso discloses accounting for environmental stress contentions in the equations, indicating that the input data could include weather data.
Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizaso et al. (Crop Science 2003, 43: 892-903; hereafter referred to as a Lizaso) in view of Cárcova et al. (Crop Science 2000, 40: 1056-1061; hereafter referred to as Cárcova), as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Etter et al. (US20190008144A1; hereafter referred to as Etter). Newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendments or after further consideration.
With respect to claims 7 and 13, Lizaso in view of Cárcova discloses the limitations of claims 1-5, as applied above.
With respect to claims 7, neither Lizaso nor Cárcova appear to disclose the use of preserved pollen.
With respect to claims 13, neither Lizaso nor Cárcova appear to disclose the cross pollination.
However, with respect to claim 7, the prior art to Etter, in the same field of endeavor discloses pollen preservation methods such that the pollen has improved viability as compared to pollen that is left in ambient conditions because methods to improve pollen viability and extend duration of viability of pollen for economically important crops such as maize is of significant value to the agricultural industry (abstract; [para 0003). Etter further discloses that utilizing stored pollen allows for pollination which is not dependent on active pollen shed, temporal synchrony with pistil (female flower) receptivity, use of male sterility, and/or physical isolation from other pollen sources.
With respect to claim 13, Etter discloses many species rely on self-pollination or cross pollination by neighboring plants to produce fertile seed or grain and that typically, in the agricultural hybrid seed industry, mechanical, physical, and/or genetic interventions are required to ensure female plants are cross pollinated, and not self-pollinated, so that pollen of a specific genetic constitution is employed to produce hybrid seed, such as to produce hybrid corn (para 0004).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of Lizaso and Cárcova, as applied to claim 1 above, with the use of stored pollen for artificial pollination, including for intentional cross pollination, as disclosed by Etter, as utilizing stored pollen allows for pollination which is not dependent on active pollen shed, temporal synchrony with pistil (female flower) receptivity, use of male sterility, and/or physical isolation from other pollen sources and methods to improve pollen viability, can produce hybrid seed, and extend duration of viability of pollen for economically important crops such as maize is of significant value to the agricultural industry. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because using preserved pollen, including for cross pollination, would not impede the hand pollination of Cárcova or the analysis steps of Lizaso. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Response to applicant’s arguments
Applicant states the instant claims as fundamentally different from Lizaso’s research-oriented mathematical models, as the claimed invention provides a practical computer-implemented system for agricultural decision-making that identifies optimal pollination time steps and guides actual intentional pollination activities in production settings and is not merely academic modeling, and represents a significant advance over Lizaso’s retrospective academic analysis, and that the examiner’s reliance on In re Venner is misplaces as Lizaso does not disclose any manual process for identifying optimal pollination time steps through modeling (Applicant’s Arguments, p 23, para 2). Applicant further states that Lizaso’s failure to teach using a computer-implemented model is not remedied by Cárcova or Etter, and the combination would not be obvious because the relative effect of intentional pollination will be diminished due to the high degree of natural pollination at the time, and rather that the intentional pollination would be best served at times when there is a large discrepancy between the number of exposed silks in the field and the availability of natural pollen, and that the instant invention details a specific method for evaluating the effect of an intentional pollination at different times periods to select a time period to intentionally apply pollen to maximize the overall yield from the field (Applicant’s Arguments, p 24, para 1- p 25, para 1; p 25, para 3-p 26, para 1). Applicant also states the office action contains no analysis of what problems the prior art was trying to solve, whether those problems would have motivated the claimed combination, or whether one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references (Applicant’s Arguments, p 25, para 1).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the instant claims, as the instant claims do not require intentionally pollinating the crops when there is a large discrepancy between the number of exposed silks in the field and the availability of natural pollen. As recited, the claims merely recite determining timesteps during which intentional pollination is modeled to provide a greater harvest than other time steps, and while claim one models the amount of available pollen during each time step in instant claim 3, this pollen availability does not impact the modelling or application of intentional pollination.
The modelling of the instant claims and the models of the simulation of Lizaso predict kernel set, including optimal timesteps for intentional pollination, using floral anthesis field data. As discussed in 2141.01(a)(I), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Furthermore, identification of problems the prior art was trying to solve, whether those problems would have motivated the claimed combination is not required for a rejection based on the rationale that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, as discussed in MPEP 2143(I)(G). As disclosed in the office action mailed 10/01/2025 and as discussed above, with respect to claims 1 and 16, the examiner has provided a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings and a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success, and that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps for modeling pollen and silk exsertion dynamics to predict kernel set as disclosed by Lizaso, by hand-pollinating the silk, as disclosed by Cárcova, when the model predicts greatest silk exsertion because synchronous pollination through hand pollination of all exposed silks on apical and sub-apical ears improved kernel number per plant and the number of kernels per number of pollinated silks as disclosed by Cárcova. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because using the results of the model to inform artificial pollination for greater harvest would not impede the analysis of Lizaso.
With respect to the argument that the prior art not disclosing the computer-implemented modeling, as discussed above, Lizaso mathematically describes the processes of floral anthesis (i.e., pollen shed and silk emergence) and pollination and discloses the use of mathematical models to simulate and predict kernel set using field data, but does not explicitly recite using a computer to implement the models (abstract; p 893, col 1, para 3-4; p 901, col 1- p 903, col 1, para 3). Therefore, as discussed above, it would have been it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a computer to automate the modeling steps of Lizaso (i.e. the manual activity), as the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)).((See MPEP 2144.04 (III).)
Therefore, the instant invention is prima facie obvious over the cited prior art, and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant also asserts the claimed invention provides unexpected results that is not taught or suggested by the prior art, specifically the integration of computer-implemented predictive modeling with actual field pollination activities provides a practical agricultural tool that neither Lizaso nor Cárcova anticipated, as neither reference recognizes the value of prospective computer-implemented modeling to guide production-scale pollination activities ((Applicant’s Arguments, p 25, para 2).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the instant claims, as the instant claims do not require a production-scale pollination activities. Applicant has also not provided explanation of what the unexpected results are that are not taught by the prior art nor provided evidence to show unexpected results (see MPEP 716.02(a). As discussed above, Lizaso discloses finding optimal pollination windows, as they show that kernel set in maize can be predicted from simple, temporal measures of the flowering process (e.g., abstract; table 1; fig 1-7). Lizaso also discloses the purpose of their work was to develop a model to simulate kernel set from the mathematical description of male and female flowering dynamics in a maize field and demonstrated the utility of their modeling approach to quantify developmental and environmental effects on kernel set, such as synchronous and asynchronous pollination, and therefore, Lizaso appear to recognize the value of modeling to guide production-scale pollination activities (p 901, col 1, para 3-p 903, col 1, para 3).
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI DHARITHREESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Larry D Riggs II can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/N.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights