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 .
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 9-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al (US 2010/0255124) in view of CA 2900515, further in view of the article by Chunlei Wang (“Hydrogen gas alleviates postharvest senescence of cut rose “Movie star” by antagonizing ethylene”) (newly cited). Green et al disclose a method wherein soil is irrigated with water (see Paragraph [0076]), and teach in Paragraphs [0072] and [0073] that the method may be used to treat plants of the Cannabis species. The difference between the method disclosed by Green et al, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that Green et al do not disclose that the water used for irrigation should include hydrogen nanobubbles, wherein a concentration of dissolved hydrogen gas in the nanobubbles ranges from approximately 0.6 mg/L to approximately 1.00 mg/L. CA 2900515 discloses a liquid solution comprising nanobubbles, and teaches on page 8, lines 4-7 that the liquid of the solution may be water and on page 8, lines 9-12 that the gas component of the mixture may be hydrogen. CA 2900515 further discloses on page 37, lines 13-22 that the nanobubble-containing solutions can be used in water for irrigation of vegetables, plants, trees and crops. The article by Chunlei Wang et al discloses a method for treating cur rose “Movie star” flowers with hydrogen-enriched water (see the right-hand column on page 272), and teaches in the paragraph bridging the first and second columns on page 272 that hydrogen serves as an informational signal to influence plant growth. The article further discloses the effects of different concentrations of hydrogen in HRW on vase life and maximum flower diameter of cut roses in Table 2 on page 275. It would be obvious from CA 2900515 in view of the article by Chunlei Wang et al to include hydrogen nanobubbles in the irrigation water for growing Cannabis in the process of Green et al, and to provide the hydrogen at a concentration of 0.6 mg/L to 1.00 mg/L. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since CA 2900515 teaches that the nanobubble-containing solutions can be used for irrigation, Green et al is broadly directed to the use of any known or conventional irrigation method for the treatment of Cannabis, and the article by Chunlei Wang establishes a relationship between hydrogen concentration and its effect on plants.
Applicant’s argument, that Green et al and CA 2900515, either taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose or teach a concentration of dissolved hydrogen gas in the HRW-nano range from 0.6 mg/L to 1.00 mg/L, is not convincing. The article by Chunlie Wang establishes a relationship between different concentrations of HRW on vase life and maximum flower diameter of cut roses “Movie star” in Table 2 on page 275. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate from such teaching that HRW concentration in an irrigation system using nanobubbles would be a result-effective variable, and it would be obvious to determine through routine experimentation suitable values for such concentrations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736