Non-Final Rejection
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, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 25, 42, and 91 are pending.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 13-14, 26-41, and 43-90 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 25, 42, and 91 will be examined on their merits.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 25, 42, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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. It is not clear what is meant by “control plant”. Neither the claims or the specification provide a clear description of the conditions the control plant was subjected to, because of this it cannot be clear to what degree the claimed plant and the control are different. To clearly define what is meant by “control plant” Applicant should fully describe the control plant (including species and variety), life history, and the growth conditions it was subjected to (growth conditions should be mapped similarly to steps A-D in claim 1).
Regarding claim 1, the last two lines recite, “thereby reducing the time to flowering of a floricane Rubus plant”. However, it is unclear to what the plant that was subjected to the recited method steps is compared to, to make the determination that flowering time was reduced.
Regarding claim 12, line 2 recites “for about 250 hours (about 10 days)”. This recitation is unclear, because “about 10 days” is about 240 hours, which is not identical to “about 250 hours”.
Regarding claim 15: lines 2-3 recites, “chill hours (chill units)”. Because the terms “chill hours” and “chill units” both occur in the claim It is unclear what is meant by “chill units”. It is also unclear how the parenthetical recitation, “(chill units)” affects the claim scope. If the terms have the same meaning, then the redundancy is unnecessary. It is suggested to delete both instances of “(chill units)”.
Regarding claim 25, lines 2-3 recite “a control floricane Rubus plant (not grown under the conditions of the invention)”. The recitation, “the conditions of the invention”, is unclear. The recitation, “the invention”, does not clearly indicate whether it is the method of claim 1, or another aspect of the invention in the specification, that is being referred to. It is further noted that, if “the invention” is referring to claim 1, that any deviation from the recited steps is considered to be encompassed by, “not grown under the conditions”.
Regarding claim 91, lines 5-6 recite “Rubus hybr (e.g., progeny resulting from hybridization of two or more of the above Rubus species)”. The parenthetical provides examples of Rubus hybr. However, it is unclear if “Rubus hybr” is limited to being ONLY the plants referred to in the parenthetical. Examples are properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 25, and 42 remain and claim 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonsteby et al. referred to hereafter as “Sonsteby 08” (Sonsteby A. “Environmental control of growth and flowering of Rubus idaeus L. Cv. Glen Ample”, Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, NO-2350, 2008) in view of Sonsteby et al. referred to here after as “Sonsteby 09” (Sonsteby A. “production of high yielding red raspberry long canes in a northern climate”, Scientia Horticulturae 121 2009 289-297), Mazzitelli et al. (Mazzitelli L. “Co-ordinated gene expression during phases of dormancy release in raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) buds”, Journal of experimental botany, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 1035-1045, 2007), and Dale et al. (Dale A. “Far-red Light Alters Primocane Morphology of Red Raspberry”, HortScience 39(5):973-974, 2004)
Claim 1 recites “A method of reducing time to flowering of a floricane Rubus plant, comprising, in the following order:
(a) growing a floricane Rubus plant under conditions comprising about 4 hours to about 6 hours of continuous darkness in a 24-hour period and a temperature of 21°c to 30ºc to produce a floricane Rubus plant having more than 14 nodes;
(b) growing the floricane Rubus plant having more than 14 nodes of (a) under induction conditions comprising a temperature of 9°c to about 14°c and a day length of 8-12 continuous hours in a 24- hour period to produce an induced floricane Rubus plant; and
(c) placing the induced floricane Rubus plant of (b) under dormancy conditions comprising a 24- hour dark period (i.e., continuous darkness) and a temperature of about 00c to about 7°c to produce a dormant floricane Rubus plant; and
(d) growing the dormant floricane Rubus plant of (c) under conditions comprising at least 4 hours of continuous darkness in a 24-hour period and a temperature of 21°c to 30ºc to produce a floricane Rubus plant that is flowering, thereby reducing the time to flowering of a floricane Rubus plant.”
Regarding claim 1 Sonsteby 08 and 09 teach methods for growing a Rubus plant. (whole document). Both Sonsteby 08 and 09 explore methods for manipulating phenology and vernalizing Rubus plants.
Regarding claim 1 items A) and D) Sonsteby 08 teaches that the Rubus plant “'Malling Promise' grew continuously at 21°c in 9hr and 14hr day light periods" (Intro, para3).
Sonsteby 08 further teaches, growing Rubus plants, inducing dormancy and floral initiation, and growing Rubus plants after dormancy to produce flowers (see section 3.3 critical duration of inductive treatment for dormancy induction and floral initiation).
Sonsteby 08 does not teach where the photo period comprises about 4 to about 6 hours of continuous darkness.
Sonsteby 09 teaches that cuttings from the Rubus plant ‘Glen Ample’ were grown and used in all of their experiments and that when establishing the plants “A minimum temperature of 20°c and natural LD (15.5-19h) were maintained throughout until rooted” (Page 290 left column, last paragraph). The 19h and 18h day length in the range of the prior art would allow for 5-6 hours of continuous darkness as claimed in the instant application.
The photoperiod ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefore are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding the temperature ranges of items A) and D) (20ºc to 30ºc) Sonsteby 09 references the teachings of Sonsteby 08 stating that Rubus grown in the 21ºc condition grew continuously and the fastest of the 3 temperature conditions used in their experiments (Sonsteby results 1st paragraph). Sonsteby 09 says that that they successfully grew Rubus plants at a minimum temperature of 20ºc (page 290 left column last paragraph), as stated the plants were grown at a minimum temperature of 20ºc this means that the condition comprises an unspecified range of temperature above 20ºc. Furthermore, While Sontsteby 09 teaches a temperature for growing Rubus that is close to but outside of the range of the instant claim, 20ºc is just below the claimed range.
a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
The temperature ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Sonsteby 08 further teaches "Plants with 10 leaves were exposed to natural light conditions and temperatures of 21, 15 and 9 °C from 4th May to 5th October... During its grand phase the average shoot growth at 21 °C was 23 cm per week with a corresponding production of five new leaves. " (Sonsteby 08, results, para 1-2). This means that a plant that started out with 10 leaves would have had the “more than 14 nodes” of claim 1 item A) by one week into the growth period under the conditions set forth. While Sonsteby 08 does not use the term nodes, nodes are required for new leaves as raspberry plants phyllotaxis is alternate decussate meaning that there will be only one leaf at each node.
Regarding claim 1 item B) Sonsteby 08 teaches " 'Malling Promise' initiated flower buds at 10 °C in both 9- and 16-h photoperiods after 3 and 4 weeks, respectively. " (Intro, Para 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 1 Item C) Sonsteby 08 teaches “While growth cessation in 'Malling Promise' took place after only 2 weeks at 10 °C and 9-h SD, the establishment of dormancy required more than 10 weeks at the same conditions.” (intro, para4).
Sonsteby 08 does not teach the limitation of Item C) wherein the dormancy conditions are 24 hours of continuous darkness and a temperature of about 0 to about 7°c.
Sonsteby 09 teaches “All plants were then moved to the experimental station at Nes where they were left out door for another 1-2 weeks before they were stored over winter in the dark at -2 °C.” (Materials and methods para3). The -2ºc and over wintering in the dark reads on the 0-7°c and 24 hours continuous darkness of item C). The 0-7ºc in item C) of claim 1 is close to the temperature taught by the prior art and the 24 hours of darkness of the claim is taught by the prior art.
a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05)
Sonsteby 08 teaches one method for inducing dormancy in Rubus plants and Sonsteby 09 teaches a similar method for inducing Dormancy in Rubus.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Sonsteby 08 by incorporating the cited steps taught by Sonsteby 09 such that Rubus plants would be grown, floral initiation and dormancy induced, and then the Rubus plants would be grown to produce flowers and fruit as discussed in the section 3.3 of Sonsteby 08. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because both methods are directed to the same outcome and as such, one would recognize that the steps could be combined or substituted to achieve said outcome. Substituting known equivalents to achieve a common purpose is prima facie obvious. One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both methods successfully achieved the goal of inducing dormancy and growing Rubus plants.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein flowering is achieved in about 120 days to about 14 months.”
Regarding claim 5 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above.
Sonsteby 08 further teaches that floricane flowering Rubus plants can be raised and made to flower in about 7 months. See experiments 1-5, the duration of which was 4-May-2006 to 2-Nov-2006 (results section). The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein flowering is achieved in about 5 months to about 7 months, optionally about 180 days to about 210 days.
Regarding claim 6, Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above. Sonsteby 08 further teaches that floricane flowering Rubus plants can be raised and made to flower in about 7 months. See experiments 1-5, duration: 4-May-2006 to 2-Nov-2006 (results section).
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 7 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the floricane Rubus plant is grown under the conditions of (a) for about 25 days to about 200 days, the floricane Rubus plant having more than 14 nodes is grown under the induction conditions of (b) for about 30 days to about 60 days and/or the floricane Rubus plant having more than 14 nodes is grown under the dormancy conditions of (c) for about 1 day to about 6 months.”
Regarding claim 7 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above. Regarding claim 7 applied to claim 1 Item A, B, and C:
Sonsteby 08 teaches in experiment 1 a method for growing Rubus plants for 5 months. (results section, pg 250-251).
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Sonsteby 08 teaches in experiment 3 growing a Rubus plant under induction conditions for up to 6 weeks (results, pg.251, right column, para2).
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Sonsteby 09 teaches a method of keeping plants over winter in dormant condition. “The plants were left at their summer growing sites until the first week of October when also the greenhouse-grown plants were moved outside for hardening until the last week of November. All plants were then moved to the experimental station at Nes where they were left out door for another 1-2 weeks before they were stored over winter in the dark at -2 °C… In both years the plants were moved out of the cold store on June 1…” (page 290 right column last paragraph abridged to page 291 left column).
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 10 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the floricane Rubus plant having more than 14 nodes is grown under the conditions of (d) for about 1 day to about 6 months.”
Regarding claim 10 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above.
Sonsteby 08 further teaches in experiment 1 a method for growing Rubus plants for 5 months. (results section, pg 250-251).
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 11 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the floricane Rubus plant growing under the induction conditions of (b) exhibits exponential stem growth for about 25 to about 60 days.”
Regarding claim 11 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above. Sonsteby 08 further teaches “With increasing length of exposure to inductive conditions an increasing initial growth reduction and a subsequent increasing delay of growth resumption occurred until, with 4, 5 or 6 weeks of exposure, partial or complete growth cessation and dormancy induction took place”. (Sonsteby 08, pg.251, right column, para 2)
From the specification the definition of "exponential growth" of the Rubus stem is “production of about one node per stem (e.g., vegetative node) (per
stem measured) every one day to every three days”. Sonsteby 08 shows in Fig.4c that the rate of new node production under their induction conditions meets or exceeds the rate of at least 1 new node every 3 days for a period of as much as 6 weeks. (Sonsteby 08, pg.252, Fig.4c)
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 12 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the induced floricane Rubus plant is grown under the dormancy conditions of (c) for about 250 hours (about 10 days) to about 40 days.”
Regarding claim 12 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above. Sonsteby 08 further teaches “With increasing length of exposure to inductive conditions an increasing initial growth reduction and a subsequent increasing delay of growth resumption occurred until, with 4, 5 or 6 weeks of exposure, partial or complete growth cessation and dormancy induction took place.” (Sonsteby 08, results, pg.251, right column, para2).
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 15 recites “ The method of claim 1, wherein the induced floricane Rubus plant is maintained under dormancy conditions of (c) for a period of time to accumulate chill hours (chill units) sufficient for dormancy and fruit set, the chill hours (chill units) sufficient for dormancy and fruit set are about 250 hours to about 2000 hours, optionally wherein when the floricane Rubus plant is a blackberry variety or cultivar, the chill hours are about 300 hours to about 900 hours and/or the floricane Rubus plant is a red raspberry variety or cultivar or a black raspberry variety or cultivar, the chill hours are about 250 hours to about 1800 hours, optionally about 600 hours to about 1600 hours.”
Regarding claim 15 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above.
Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 do not teach specific chill hours or fruit set.
Mazzitelli teaches experiments with Rubus idaeus (cv. ‘Glen Ample’)(materials and methods para1). Mazzitelli teaches “In whole canes, bud dormancy was released more gradually. After 1100 h chilling, approximately 20% of buds from the upper part of the cane had opened after 14 d in a forcing environment, a similar proportion to those on isolated nodes. However, maximal bud burst in the upper part of the cane did not occur until canes had been exposed to approximately 1900 h chilling, 500 h more than required to achieve maximum bud burst in isolated nodes (Fig. lB)” (pg.1038, left column, para1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the methods of growing and inducing Rubus plants taught by Sonsteby 08, the method of overwintering Rubus in dormancy taught by Sonsteby 09, and the teachings about chill hour requirements of Rubus form Mazzitelli to chill the dormant Rubus plants for about 750hrs (approximately the smallest number of chill hours required for post dormancy floral eruption in Fig.1B), which falls in the claimed range, to induce meristematic floral differentiation and fruit set thereby causing flowering when the plants are exposed to longer day and higher temperature conditions.
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings because they are all directed to stimulating Rubus plants to produce flowers.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because these methods successfully established fruit set and produced flowers in Rubus plants.
Claim 25 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the time to flowering is reduced to about 6 months to about 14 months as compared to about 18 to 30 months for a control floricane Rubus plant (not grown under the conditions of the invention) or wherein the time to flowering is reduced by about 30% to about 80% as compared to a control floricane Rubus plant”
Regarding claim 25 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above.
Sonsteby 08 further teaches a method of inducing a Rubus plant to flower in about 10 months (Page 249-251). The duration of the method applied by Sonsteby 08 to produce a flowering Rubus plant falls within the claimed range of 6-14 months.
Sonsteby 08 further teaches “When exposed to inductive conditions for marginal periods of 3 or 4 weeks, an increasing proportion of the plants (20% and 67%, respectively), behaved as primocane flowering cultivars with recurrent growth and terminal flowering. It is concluded that growth cessation and floral initiation in raspberry are jointly controlled by low temperature and short day conditions and coincide in time as parallel outputs from the same internal induction mechanism” (abstract). This means that even varieties generally considered to be floricane flowering can be manipulated to flower as primocanes. Given this it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to grow a Rubus plant and to apply the teachings of Sonsteby 08 to force earlier flowering.
The ranges taught by the prior art overlap with the instant claim ranges and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 42 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the day length of at least 8 continuous hours in a 24-hour period of (b) includes light that is supplemented with far-red light.” Far red light is defined in the application specification as “far-red light (e.g., a wavelength of about 700 nm to about 800 nm).”
Regarding claim 42 Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 teach the method of claim 1 as above.
Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 do not teach supplementation with far-red light.
Dale teaches the supplementation of far red light of a wavelength of 700-750nm applied to Rubus cultivars growing under similar induction conditions (pg.973, right column, para1 and table1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the methods of Sonsteby 08 and Sonsteby 09 to incorporate the cited steps taught by Dale. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the methods are all drawn to producing a flowering Rubus plant and the ability of far red light to effect the growth habit of plants is known in the art. Dale teaches that the application of far red light can increase internode length and overall shoot length in Rubus.
The range of wavelengths that are defined as far red light stated in the specification of the instant application are overlapped by the ranges of what is considered far red light taught by the prior art and therefor the claim is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Arguments and remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 October 2025 are acknowledged, however Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive.
Regarding arguments and amendments directed toward the 103 rejection:
Applicant urges that the temperature cited in the prior art (-2°C/28°F) should not be considered close to the claimed temperature range in item C of claim 1 (about 0°C to about 7°C/ about 32°F to about 45°F). Applicant argues “blackberry is not as cold hardy as red raspberry. Thus, whereas red raspberry can tolerate a temperature of -21°F or -22°F (temperatures within the range of USDA hardiness zone 4), a blackberry plant with a hardiness zone rating of 7a (0°F to about 5°F) would be killed and a blackberry plant with a hardiness zone rating of 5 (15°F to -20°F) would be injured or likely killed. Accordingly, a difference of a few degrees in temperature is significant and is a limitation of the claims that cannot be ignored or deemed “close” enough.
The temperature used in the prior art is -2°C which is 28°F, 28°F is 4°F below the bottom end of the temperature range being argued over (claim 1 item c, about 0°C to about 7°C/ about 32°F to about 45°F). It is not clear why being placed under dormancy at 28°F would injure or kill any of the plants referred to in Applicant’s argument, 28°F is well within the ranges of all USDA hardiness zones cited. Furthermore, the only working examples of the process claimed applied to a plant in the specification are drawn to Rubus occidentalis (Black Raspberry). additionally, the claims encompass blackberry plants. This argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is not considered “as a whole” is not persuasive. The examiner has laid out steps and subjects collated from the prior art references that map with the steps in Applicant’s claims to form an obviousness rejection in line with 35 U.S.C. 103. Sonsteby 08 teaches in their result section growing Rubus plants, inducing dormancy and floral initiation, and growing Rubus plants after dormancy to produce flowers (see section 3.3 critical duration of inductive treatment for dormancy induction and floral initiation). Persons of skill in the art would know that for floricane flowering Rubus one would need to grow the plant, then induce floral initiation, then induce dormancy, then return the plant to normal growth conditions to produce flowers and eventually fruit.
Applicant has amended claim 1 adding the clause “in the following order”. While this amendment adds to clarity in the claim this amendment does nothing to alleviate the 103 rejection as claim 1 is already examined such that the order of items is as written (a to b to c to d, that is, growth to floral induction to dormancy to resumed growth) because POSITA would recognize that that is the natural process to develop flowers on a Rubus cutting.
Summary
No claim is allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Zachariah Kay whose telephone number is (703)756-4771,
reachable hours: Pacific time Monday-Wednesday & Friday 0900-1230 & 1430-1830, Thursday 0900-1630.
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.
/ZACHARIAH ALLAN KAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1661
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1616 & 1662
Prosecution Insights