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 .
Priority
This application is filed on 07/28/2022. It is noted that the instant application does not claim the benefit of priority to any earlier filed applications. The claims are therefore examined as filed on 07/28/2022, the effective filing date.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, all references have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see pg 2). 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.
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 3-6, 8, and 20 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 3 contains the phrase "to which the field is applied" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1, from which this claim depends, refers to “one or more fields.” Because claim 1 encompasses embodiments in which more than one field is applied, it is unclear if claim 3 is referring to a particular field from the one or more fields, or any of the one or more fields referred to in claim 1. Therefore the claim is indefinite due to lack of clarity. Currently, the claim is interpreted to refer to any of the “one or more fields” of claim 1, and the Examiner recommends amending this claim to instead read “to which the one or more fields is applied…”
Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3 and do not resolve the issue of indefiniteness. Therefore these claims are also rejected due to lack of clarity.
Claim 8 contains the phrase “wherein the extracted substances are metals.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1, from which this claim depends, does not refer to any extracted substances. Therefore the claim is indefinite due to lack of clarity. The Examiner recommends amending this claim to depend from claim 7 instead, which introduces the limitation of extracting one or more substances, and further amending the claim to read “wherein the one or more extracted substances…” to match the wording of claim 7.
Claim 20 contains the limitation “wherein…the field applied to one of the cell groups differs from the field applied to another group.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1, from which this claim depends, refers to “one or more fields.” Because claim 1 encompasses embodiments in which only one field is applied, there is not antecedent basis for two different fields applied to different groups of cells. Therefore the claim is indefinite due to lack of clarity.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejection
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SUNTYCH 2016 “Photon Modulation Management System (WO 2016033350 A1).
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
Claim 1 recites a feedback-based method for controlling cell functioning and motility, comprising: using by a controller one or more sensors to determine characteristics of one or more of the cells within a receptacle at multiple time points.
With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches an automated system and methods of controlling plant cell growth [0042], wherein the system comprises a controller and plant sensors that monitor plant characteristics of a plant in a growth chamber [0046, 90, Fig 12] over multiple time points [0042, 45].
Claim 1 also recites determining by the controller parameters for one or more fields to be applied to one or more of the cells at the multiple time points via one or more field generators positioned with respect to the receptacle based on the characteristics determined at those time points, each field generator comprising one or more of a magnet, transducer, electromagnet, or a pair of electrodes, the parameters comprising at least one of amplitude, frequency, wavelength, phase, waveform, and duration.
With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that based on the information from the plant sensors, the system sends instructions to a photon emission modulation controller that causes a photon emitter to emits electromagnetic radiation in the form of photon pulses, and adjusts duration, intensity, color spectrum and/or duty cycle of each photon pulse to a specific organism [004, 29, 90]. SUNTYCH also teaches that the emitters are composed of LED arrays [0012-16, 27]; and LEDs are transducers that convert electrical energy into light.
Claim 2 recites the limitation wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more of electromagnetic sensors, hyperspectral imaging sensors, impedance sensors, chemical sensors, biosensors, optical sensors, acoustic sensors, electrochemical sensors, microfluidics sensors , and volatile gas sensors.
With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that the sensors can include gas sensors and sensors that measure infrared, ph, respiration and plant morphology [0078], optical sensors [0100], or any sensor for monitoring environmental or physiological conditions [078, claim 13].
Claim 3 recites the limitation wherein the plurality of cells are comprised in a plant and the cells to which the field is applied are comprised in at least one or more leaves of the plant, one or more portions of a stem of the plant, and one or more of the roots of the plant.
With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that the cells are in a plant and that the emitted photons can be applied to any part of the plant, including the whole plant or group of plants [Abstract, 028, 90].
Claim 9 recites the limitation wherein the application of one or more of the fields causes at least one of a growth of the cells to which that field is applied, a change in proliferation of the cells to which that field is applied, and death of the cells to which that field is applied. With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that the photon emitter can induce growth or destruction in the organism (Abstract, [028, 55]).
Claim 10 recites the limitation wherein the application of the one or more fields causes at least some of the cells to at least one of move or grow into a direction. With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that the application of light/electromagnetic field causes growth or elongation of a plant towards the source [0056].
Claim 11 recites the limitation wherein the direction is controlled by the parameters of the one or more fields. With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that growth of a plant or fungi towards the source of light can be controlled by parameters such as color spectrum, wavelength and pulse delay [0056].
Claim 12 recites the limitation wherein the cells are comprised in a seed and the application of one or more of the fields causes the seed to germinate. With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that the photon emitter can be used to germinate seeds [0055, 60, 75, 87].
Claim 13 recites the limitation wherein the cells are selected from the group consisting one or more of plant cells, eukaryotic cells, prokaryotic cells, mammalian cells, algae cells, fungal cells, and protist cells. With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that the cells can be from any organism, including plants [Abstract, 0041].
Claim 20 recites the limitation wherein the one or more cells comprise a plurality of groups of cells and the field applied to one of the cell groups differs from the field applied to another group of the cells. With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches applying electromagnetic radiation to different plants or different groups of plants [0028-29, 90] where the field parameters can be varied to achieve different results [0055].
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.
Claim Rejection
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNTYCH as applied to claims 1-3, 9-13, and 20 above, and further in view of LAZCANO-RAMIREZ 2018 “Non-destructive Plant Morphometric and Color Analyses Using an Optoelectronic 3D Color Microscope.”
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
SUNTYCH teaches the limitations of claims 1-3, 9-13, and 20 above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation wherein at least some of the sensors measure pigment composition of the leaves. With respect to this limitation, SUNTYCH teaches that any sensors that monitor plant condition can be used [0078] but does not specify that the sensors measure pigment composition. However, LAZCANO-RAMIREZ teaches sensors in the form of an optoelectronic 3D color microscope (Abstract), which can measure pigment composition (pg 10 col 1).
Resolving Ordinary Skill in the Art and Obviousness Rationale
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in plant sensor methods would have been motivated to combine the methods of SUNTYCH with the methods of LAZCANO-RAMIREZ, in order to achieve the claimed invention, because the use of a color microscope sensor in determining pigment composition allows for identification of plant variations and diagnostics (pg 10 par 1), and this particular method is able to produce high quality measurements in real-time (Abstract). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success from combining these teachings, as both SUNTYCH and LAZCANO-RAMIREZ teach methods of plant monitoring using sensors, and the sensor microscope of LAZCANO-RAMIREZ can be used alongside or in place of the sensors described in SUNTYCH. Therefore, the claims at issue would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as there is both a reason to modify or combine the prior art, and a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.02 (I)).
Claim Rejection
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNTYCH as applied to claims 1-3, 9-13, and 20 above, and further in view of LUO 2019 “The phytoremediation efficiency of Eucalyptus globulus treated by static magnetic fields before sowing.”
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
SUNTYCH teaches the limitations of claims 1-3, 9-13, and 20 above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation wherein the application of one or more of the fields causes the roots to accelerate extraction of one or more substances from a medium in which the roots are positioned. Claim 6 further recites wherein the medium is one of a soil and a hydroponic medium. Claim 7 further recites the limitation wherein the application of one or more of the fields causes one or more of the cells to accelerate extraction and increase retention of one or more substances from a medium in which the cells are positioned. Claim 8 recites the limitation wherein the extracted substances are metals.
SUNTYCH does not teach these limitations, however LUO teaches the application of an electromagnetic field to a plant can cause the roots of the plant to increase uptake of metals from soil (Abstract, pg 894 col 2).
Resolving Ordinary Skill in the Art and Obviousness Rationale
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in plant treatment using electromagnetic fields would have been motivated to combine the methods of SUNTYCH with the methods of LUO, in order to achieve the claimed invention, because beneficial effects of magnetic field on plants including increasing seed germination, stimulating seedling growth and protecting cell integrity are known, and magnetic field treatment is used widely to improve crop productivity (pg 892 par 4). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success from combining these teachings, as both SUNTYCH and LUO teach methods of plant modulation using electromagnetic radiation/fields, and the field generator of LUO can be used alongside or in place of the LED array described in SUNTYCH to produce additional effects in response to measured plant parameters. Therefore, the claims at issue would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as there is both a reason to modify or combine the prior art, and a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.02 (I)).
Claim Rejection
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNTYCH as applied to claims 1-3, 9-13, and 20 above, and further in view of DUMAR “Probing the 3D architecture of the plant nucleus with microscopy approaches: challenges and solutions.”
Claim Interpretation and Scope and Contents of Prior Art
SUNTYCH teaches the limitations of claims 1-3, 9-13, and 20 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation wherein at least some of the sensors perform three-dimensional microscopy and at least one of the characteristics of one of the cells comprises structural features of that cells. SUNTYCH does not teach this limitation, however DUMUR teaches methods for performing 3D microscopy in plants to determine structural features of cells (Abstract, pg 185).
Claim 15 recites the limitation wherein a depth of the structural features depends on a wavelength of a light used during the microscopy. With respect to this limitation, DUMUR teaches that higher wavelengths provide better tissue penetration during microscopy (pg 193 last par).
Claim 16 recites the limitation wherein the light comprises one or more of terahertz radiation, visible spectrum light, infrared light, and ultraviolet light. With respect to this limitation, DUMUR teaches the use of CLSM microscopy, which uses visible spectrum light (pg 185).
Claim 17 recites the limitation wherein the structural features comprise one or more of a location and size of one or more organelles within that cell. With respect to this limitation, DUMUR teaches localizing cell structural features such as the nucleus (Abstract, pg 183 par 2).
Claim 18 recites the limitation wherein the characteristics comprise one or more of the cells producing one or more biomarkers and claim 19 similarly recites wherein the characteristics comprise one or more of the cells producing one or more biomarkers. With respect to this limitation, DUMAR teaches identifying biomarkers (endogenous compounds) produced by the cell with fluorescent labelling (pg 183 col 2).
Resolving Ordinary Skill in the Art and Obviousness Rationale
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in plant sensor/imaging methods would have been motivated to combine the methods of SUNTYCH with the methods of DUMAR, in order to achieve the claimed invention, because the use of 3d microscopy is a known effective approach to determining cellular structures (Abstract) and can be done in live plants to view cell behavior over time (pg 203). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success from combining these teachings, as both SUNTYCH and DUMAR teach methods of plant monitoring using sensors, and the microscope and methods of DUMAR can be used alongside or in place of the sensors described in SUNTYCH. Therefore, the claims at issue would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as there is both a reason to modify or combine the prior art, and a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143.02 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C LEVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-5494. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm M-Th.
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, Karlheinz R. Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/MARY C LEVERETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1687