DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 12/09/2025 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claim 38 was amended, Claims 40-46 were withdrawn, and Claims 1-37 were canceled. Claims 38-39, 47-51 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 400.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
References 1 and 6 have both been used to reference the storage container in [0099] and references 36 and 34 have both been used to reference personnel lock in [0148].
Appropriate correction is required.
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 38-39, 47-51 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.
For claim 38, the limitation “the harvested development material” in line 10 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 51, the limitation “the process unit” in lines 3, 5-6 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 39, 47-50 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 38-39, 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 9101096 B1) in view of Yoshida (EP 3259984 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 38, Lewis teaches a method for cultivating development material (Col. 6, lines 12-13), the method comprising:
providing a storage container (100);
inserting a storage rack (140) of a growth or propagation station (110) into the storage container (Col. 7, lines 3-4 as 110 is inserted into the exterior shell 120, which is the exterior shell of storage container 100, and so the storage rack is inserted into the storage container);
monitoring growth or propagation of the development material (Col. 10, lines 2-13) in an aseptic internal atmosphere of the storage container (Col. 3, lines 47-51) until propagation stage for harvesting (Col. 9, lines 14-17);
while maintaining the aseptic atmosphere (Col. 3, lines 47-51), to the storage container (Col. 3, lines 47-51) and recovering a biological material containing an active substance from the harvested development material (Col. 3, lines 47-51, and Col. 6, lines 1-16).
However, Lewis is silent about coupling a maintenance unit, within the maintenance unit while maintaining the aseptic atmosphere.
Yoshida teaches coupling a maintenance unit (7 and fig. 1 as maintenance unit 7 is coupled to rooms 2 and 6), within the maintenance unit while maintaining the aseptic atmosphere (abstract, see translation “ a packing work room 7 which includes a sterilization activity composition supply device 23 which supplies the packing work room 7 with a predetermined amount of sterilization activity composition which sterilizes the packing work space into which the packing materials P are transferred”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include coupling a maintenance unit, within the maintenance unit while maintaining the aseptic atmosphere as taught by Yoshida into the method of Lewis in order to prevent contamination of the harvested plants before they are packaged (see translation “the packing work room 7 is also controlled so that no bacteria is attached to the plants Sb before packing.” of Yoshida) and reduce the risk of contaminating the plants that are not ready for harvesting.
Regarding claim 39, Lewis as modified by Yoshida teaches the method of claim 38, and Lewis further teaches wherein to control an atmosphere for growth or propagation, at least one of parameters1 that follow are determined, monitored, or adjusted air pressure, temperature, humidity (Col. 8, lines 38-41), light intensity, gas exchange rate, fertilizer quantity, fertilizer composition, pH value, and conductance, or wherein, to control the atmosphere for growth or propagation, at least one of parameters that follow are determined, monitored, or adjusted, SAL level, partial gas pressure, fertilizer temperature, wind intensity, wind direction, sound level, or sound frequency sequence.
Regarding claim 47, Lewis as modified by Yoshida teaches the method of claim 38, and Lewis further teaches wherein the storage container is a large-capacity ISO container (Col. 6, lines 30-31) having a sensor-monitored distribution device (504, Col. 8, lines 29-30) that provides and monitors the aseptic internal atmosphere (Col. 3, lines 49-54 and Col. 8, lines 41-43 as the gas sensor can detect and monitor ethylene, which will cause for sterilization) with simultaneous setting, monitoring, or maintenance of optimum growth conditions (Col. 8, lines 34-36 and Col. 10, lines 8-12), wherein to ensure the optimum growth conditions the sensor-monitored distribution device is configured to sense and adjust at least one of parameters that follow, air pressure, temperature, humidity, or gas exchange rate (Col. 8, lines 36-43 and Col. 10, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 48, Lewis as modified by Yoshida teaches the method of claim 47, and Lewis further teaches wherein the sensor-monitored distribution device senses and adjusts, either alone or in combination with other sensors, at least one of parameters2 that follow SAL level, partial gas pressure of a single or a combination of the following gases CO2, 02, N2, He, Ar, O3, CO, CH4, ethane, ethene, ethyne, or terpenes, fertilizer temperature, wind strength, wind direction, sound level or sound frequency sequence, light intensity (Col. 9, lines 63-65), fertilizer quantity, fertilizer composition, pH value, or conductance.
Regarding claim 49, Lewis as modified by Yoshida teaches the method of claim 48, wherein the terpenes are single or in combination hemiterpenes, monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, diterpenes, sesterterpenes, triterpenes, tetraterpenes, polyterpenes, and terpenoids (note that sensing the partial gas pressure of terpenes is not required by the claims given the "or" clause in claim 48).
Regarding claim 50, Lewis as modified by Yoshida teaches the method of claim 38, and Lewis further teaches wherein the growth or propagation station comprises a grow room (200) with an inlet (410) or outlet (420) of a cleaning medium for clean-in-place cleaning (Col. 11, lines 13-15) or3 for an ozone clean-in-place medium (Col. 11, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 51, Lewis as modified by Yoshida teaches the method of claim 38, and Lewis as modified by Yoshida further teaches wherein the growth or propagation station (110 of Lewis) is part of a cultivation that further comprises the maintenance unit (7 of Yoshida) or4 the process unit, wherein the maintenance unit or process unit, at least in combination with the growth or propagation station, maintains the aseptic internal atmosphere (Col. 3, lines 47-51 of Lewis and see machine translation “The packing work room 7 is also controlled so that no bacteria is attached to the plants Sb before packing.” of Yoshida).
However, Lewis as modified by Yoshida is silent wherein the maintenance unit is connected to the growth or propagation station for transferring development material or machinery between the growth or propagation station and the maintenance unit or the process unit.
Yoshida further teaches wherein the maintenance unit (7) is connected to the growth or propagation station (6; fig. 1) for transferring development material (Sb) or machinery between the growth or propagation station and the maintenance unit (fig. 1 and see machine translation “the plants Sb cultivated in the plant cultivation room are transferred out of the plant cultivation room and transferred into the packing work room 7.” of Yoshida).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance unit of Lewis as modified by Yoshida to be connected to the growth or propagation station for transferring development material or machinery between the growth or propagation station and the maintenance unit further taught by Yoshida in order to easily transfer the plants and to quickly get the plant to a sterile room to prevent contamination as (see translation “the packing work room 7 is also controlled so that no bacteria is attached to the plants Sb before packing.” of Yoshida).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues “This feature advantageously allows maintaining the aseptic atmosphere during harvesting, while also allowing the maintenance unit to be used with other storage containers. Lewis and Yoshida do not disclose or suggest such a maintenance unit, and therefore do not disclose or suggest coupling such a unit to the storage container as claimed. The combination accordingly does not render amended independent claim 38 obvious.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the maintenance unit to be used with other storage containers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner would like to state that the claims only recite one storage container.
Also, as stated above, Yoshida teaches a maintenance unit 7 that is coupled to rooms 2 and 6 as shown in fig. 1 while also maintaining the aseptic atmosphere (abstract, see translation “ a packing work room 7 which includes a sterilization activity composition supply device 23 which supplies the packing work room 7 with a predetermined amount of sterilization activity composition which sterilizes the packing work space into which the packing materials P are transferred”). Therefore, the combination of Lewis and Yoshida will teach the maintenance unit to be coupled to the storage container.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 1 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: due to the alternative Markush phrasing, only one option is required to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.
2 Interpretation note: due to the Markush phrasing, only one option is required to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.
3 Interpretation note: due to the alternative phrasing “or”, only one option is required to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claim limitation. However, for compact prosecution, both have been mapped.
4 Interpretation note: due to the alternative phrasing “or”, only one option is required to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.