Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 30 June 2026. The amendments to claim 18 has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 30 June 2026 is sufficient to overcome the art rejections.
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 18, 22-24 and 28-35 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 submitted 30 June 2026 raises a question as to whether the claimed method of increasing fruit development by light treatment using the silicate of claims 18, 22-24 and 28-35 is enabled. The declaration states that untuned dual-band light sources, such as those taught in FR 2,846,663, lack the critical spectral optimization required to induce the transition to fruit development and provides no guidance given on spectral tuning or optimal waveband ratios. It further states that without any guidance given on spectral tuning or optimal waveband ratios, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be persuaded that the described silicates could improve fruit development. The claimed silicate composition of claim 18, which is implicitly taught in claims 22-24 and 28-35, is broader in scope that that taught in FR 2,846,663, in that the taught amounts of europium and manganese are in the range of greater than 0 up to 0.5 or 0.0001-0.4 or a silicate containing 0.01-0.35 europium and 0.04-0.15 manganese, which the amounts of europium and manganese of FR 2,846,663 are in the range of greater than 0 up to 0.3, 0.0001-0.25 or 0.01-0.25 or a silicate containing 0.01-0.03 europium and 0.04-0.06 manganese. Thus the silicate of the claims must also lack the critical spectral optimization required to induce the transition to fruit development. The claims also do not provide any guidance on spectral tuning or optimal waveband ratios required to induce the transition to fruit development. Thus, based on the statements in declaration, it appears the claimed method is not enabled since the claims are missing the critical spectral optimization required to induce the transition to fruit development and provides no guidance given on spectral tuning or optimal waveband ratios.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited are of record of a method for increasing fruit development of a plant by light treatment, wherein the method comprises stimulating fruit development with a light emission provided by a green house film or by placing the plant in a greenhouse comprising the greenhouse film wherein the film comprises at least a matrix and a silicate has the formula Ba2.7Eu0.3Mg0.9Mn0.1Si2O8 or Ba2.94Eu0.06Mg0.95Mn0.05Si2O8 wherein the film exhibits a light transmission 80% or greater as measured by the standard method ASTM D1003.
Based on the declaration and what is known in the art, the claimed amounts of europium and manganese provide the critical spectral optimization and optimal waveband ratio required to induce the transition to fruit development. There is no teaching or suggestion in the art that the claimed ratios of 0.3:0.1 or 0.06:0.05 are optimal waveband ratios required to induce the transition to fruit development.
Conclusion
Applicant's declaration necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
7/20/26
Prosecution Insights