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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20215187.4, filed on 12/17/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein the sensor unit is used to obtain the dataset in a non-destructive and non-intrusive matter”. Examiner believes the claim should recite “wherein the sensor unit is used to obtain the dataset in a non-destructive and non-intrusive manner”, matching language of the specification (p. 6, lines 1-2, “According to another embodiment the sensor unit is used to obtain the dataset in a non-destructive and non-intrusive manner.”).
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.
Claim 3 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 recites “wherein the sensor unit is used to obtain the dataset in a non-destructive and non-intrusive matter”. It is not clear how a dataset is obtained in a “non-intrusive” matter (or manner, see Claim Objections above). The specification does not provide details on the means of obtaining the dataset in a non-intrusive way (p. 6, lines 1-2, “According to another embodiment the sensor unit is used to obtain the dataset in a non-destructive and non-intrusive manner.”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for screening of at least one chemical substance by treatment of plant material, comprising the steps of:
a. applying the plant material into a cavity;
b. treatment of the plant material with the chemical substance;
c. creating at least one dataset showing at least one phenotypical characteristic of the plant material after treatment with the chemical substance; and
d. assigning the chemical substance based on the dataset to at least one site of action (SoA) and/or at least one mode of action (MoA) of a multitude of stored SoA and/or MoA by using a SoA-and/or MoA-compendium containing data regarding dependencies between phenotypical characteristics of at least one plant material treated by at least one reference substance of a known SoA and/or MoA.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above; the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 recites a process and is therefore falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises process steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category.
Individually and collectively, the steps:
“creating at least one dataset showing at least one phenotypical characteristic of the plant material after treatment with the chemical substance”; and
“assigning the chemical substance based on the dataset to at least one site of action (SoA) and/or at least one mode of action (MoA) of a multitude of stored SoA and/or MoA by using a SoA-and/or MoA-compendium”
may be performed as mental process. Creating at least one dataset is the collection of information, which may be performed as mental processes. Assigning a chemical substance to at least one site of action and/or at least one mode of action from a compendium is an analytical processes, which may be performed as mental processes. The type of high-level information collecting and analyzing data recited in these elements has been found by the Federal Circuit to constitute patent ineligible matter (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether a claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 1, applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most significant of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea to technologically improve any aspect of a system that may be used to implement the highlighted steps such a generic computer.
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, none of the additional elements are utilized in a particularized manner of implementing the abstract idea process steps.
Regarding effectuation of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, the claim includes no such transformation or reduction. Instead, the claim as a whole entails gathering information (“creating at least one dataset”) and analyzing said information (“assigning the chemical substance based on the dataset”).
The additional elements “applying the plant material into a cavity” and “treatment of the plant material with the chemical substance” are insignificant extra-solution activity. The steps of applying the plant material into a cavity and treatment of the plant material are necessary data gathering for the process steps (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the claim elements reciting an abstract idea do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in the relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record as indicated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102.
Independent claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One). Claims 2-5, and 9-12 further detail the creating of the dataset. Claims 6-8, and 16-17 further detail the necessary information gathering steps. Claims 13-15, and 18 further detail the assigning of the chemical substance step. None of dependent claims 2-18 and 20 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims 2-18 therefore are also ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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(s) 1-4, 6, 8-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Champion et al. (US 20220390438 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Champion teaches A method for screening of at least one chemical substance by treatment of plant material (Abstract), comprising the steps of:
a. applying the plant material into a cavity (Fig. 1; [0118] “The screening methods of the present invention may use any suitable arrangement of compartments (e.g. wells, tubes and the like) amenable to HTS assays.”). The “wells, tubes, and the like” is the cavity the plant material is applied into, as shown in Fig. 1; see also paragraph [0015])
b. treatment of the plant material with the chemical substance ([0110] lines 1-4, “The methods of the present invention use plant matter from non-vascular plants. The methods may comprise the steps of: (i) contacting a series of different candidate compounds with a plurality of test samples”). The contacting of candidate compounds with a plurality of test samples is the treatment with the chemical substance, see also [0015]);
c. creating at least one dataset showing at least one phenotypical characteristic of the plant material after treatment with the chemical substance ([0128] lines 1-19, “During and/or upon completion of the assays (i.e. creating at least one dataset), suitable comparisons can be made between test samples in which the non-vascular plants were treated with various candidate compounds and control samples in which the non-vascular plants were not treated with the various candidates compounds. The control sample(s) may be a negative control sample in which the non-vascular plants were not mixed with a herbicide or a plant growth regulator and/or the control sample(s) may be a positive control sample in which the non-vascular plants were mixed with known herbicides or plant growth regulators (e.g. herbicides or plant growth regulators having known modes of action). These comparisons can be used to determine factors including, but not limited to, whether a given candidate compound or mixture of candidate compounds has herbicidal activity, the potency of any herbicide activity observed, the phenotypic response of the non-vascular plant in response to a given candidate compound (i.e. at least one phenotypical characteristic of the plant material after treatment) found to exhibit herbicidal activity, and/or the predicted mode of action of a given candidate compound found to exhibit herbicidal activity.”); and
d. assigning the chemical substance ([0159] lines 1-3, “Compounds selected as potentially having herbicidal activity or plant growth regulating activity using the methods of the invention may be referred to herein as “hits”.”; see “compounds with known herbicidal activity of [0160]). The chemical substance (i.e. “compounds”) are assigned as indicated by “hits” (see: [0224] “The mode of action of hits selected with the unsupervised method was predicted by the clustering of hits with positive controls. Positive controls were commercial herbicides used at concentrations known to cause specific mode of action symptoms. The concentration of commercial herbicides known to cause specific mode of action symptoms was determined experimentally by visual inspection of dose-response experiments where plants were exposed to a range of herbicide concentrations.”; [0226] “On average, the automated classification of hits into clusters was 86% consistent with manual classification of hits into groups of phenotypic similarity. If the hit fell outside of clusters associated with a known mode of action positive control, the hit was visually inspected for the presence of unique symptoms and if unique symptoms were observed the hit was predicted to have a novel mode of action.”) based on the dataset to at least one site of action (SoAand/or at least one mode of action (MoA) ([0100] lines 5-12, “The methods further allow prediction of the mode of action of herbicidal compounds or plant growth regulators, including compounds identified by the methods described herein and any known herbicides or plant growth regulators that may not have been characterised for mode of action. Thus, the methods provided herein may be used to identify compounds, for example, herbicidal compounds or plant growth regulators, with novel modes of action.”) of a multitude of stored SoA and/or MoA ([0128] lines 9-12, “the control sample(s) may be a positive control sample in which the non-vascular plants were mixed with known herbicides or plant growth regulators (e.g. herbicides or plant growth regulators having known modes of action).”) by using a SoA-and/or MoA-compendium containing data regarding dependencies between phenotypical characteristics of at least one plant material treated by at least one reference substance of a known SoA and/or MoA ([0104] lines 1-13, “Compound libraries (i.e. compendium containing data regarding dependencies) for use in the methods of the present invention may be created from combinatorial chemistry or from natural products, for example, secondary metabolites from plants, animals, and/or microorganisms. In some embodiments of the present invention, natural compounds may be processed prior to inclusion in a compound library. A non-limiting example of a suitable processing technique, which is well known to those skilled in the art, is solid phase extraction. In further embodiments of the invention, combinatorial libraries to be screened may be synthesised in the compartments in which the assay is carried out, thereby providing reference addresses for candidate compounds”; [0128] lines 6-20, “The control sample(s) may be a negative control sample in which the non-vascular plants were not mixed with a herbicide or a plant growth regulator and/or the control sample(s) may be a positive control sample in which the non-vascular plants were mixed with known herbicides or plant growth regulators (e.g. herbicides or plant growth regulators having known modes of action). These comparisons can be used to determine factors including, but not limited to, whether a given candidate compound or mixture of candidate compounds has herbicidal activity, the potency of any herbicide activity observed, the phenotypic response of the non-vascular plant in response to a given candidate compound found to exhibit herbicidal activity, and/or the predicted mode of action of a given candidate compound found to exhibit herbicidal activity.”).
Regarding claim 2, Champion teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the dataset is obtained by use of a sensor unit ([0199] lines 6-14, “Several images were generated (FIG. 2, FIG. 5): an image where only the Far-Red photons were recorded by the camera chip (Far-Red image)”). The camera chip is the sensor unit.
Regarding claim 3, Champion teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the sensor unit is used to obtain the dataset in a non-destructive and non-intrusive matter ([0199] lines 6-14, “Several images were generated (FIG. 2, FIG. 5): an image where only the Far-Red photons were recorded by the camera chip (Far-Red image), an image where only the Cyan photons were recorded (Cyan image) an image where only the Yellow photons (Yellow image) were recorded and an image where transmitted light was recorded (Brightfield image). A 2× objective lens was used to produce a Far-Red image with a field of view covering the entire well.”). As best understood by the examiner, the images recorded by transmitted light are obtained in a non-destructive and non-intrusive matter.
Regarding claim 4, Champion teaches The method according claim 2, wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one of hyperspectral VIS, hyperspectral NIR, chlorophyll fluorescence ([0210] lines 6-9, “A non-exhaustive list of measurements was, for example, “plant length”, “plant width”, “plant circularity”, “chlorophyll fluorescence intensity”, and “number of cells per plant””) or RGB sensors. The measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence intensity is the sensor unit comprising chlorophyll fluorescence.
Regarding claim 6, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein the cavity is a well of a multi-well plate ([0118]-[0119] “The screening methods of the present invention may use any suitable arrangement of compartments (e.g. wells, tubes and the like) amenable to HTS assays. For example, a 96-well microtitre plate may be used for both automated and non-automated forms of HTS. The assays may be set up manually or by a robotic system such as a liquid-handling robot.”)
Regarding claim 8, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein the chemical substance is applied at different concentrations ([0104] lines 10-14, “combinatorial libraries to be screened may be synthesised in the compartments in which the assay is carried out, thereby providing reference addresses for candidate compounds. A range of concentrations of any given compound/s may be tested.”).
Regarding claim 9, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein one collective dataset is taken for a multitude of plant material pieces ([0110] lines 10-12, “the test samples and the control samples comprise whole-plants, spores, sporelings, explants, protoplasts or vegetative propagules from non-vascular plants.”) and subsequently decomposed ([0153] “Alternatively, all or a subset of raw variables may be selected which describe a phenotypic difference between the plants treated with a candidate herbicide and a negative or a positive control.”) into single datasets per single piece of plant material ([0070] lines 1-3, “As used herein, the term “phenotype” will be taken to mean a set of observable characteristics of an individual, for example, an individual plant, or a part of said plant.”; [0157] lines 11-15, “Non-limiting examples of morphological and/or physiological characteristics which may be measured include plant length, plant width, plant shape, plant pigmentation, plant circularity, chlorophyll concentration, and number of cells per plant.”). The explants and vegetative propagules are plant material pieces. The characteristics, or subsets thereof, on the individual plant (i.e. plant material pieces) are the “raw variables” which may be selected in describing phenotypic difference, and therefore is decomposed into single datasets.
Regarding claim 10, Champion teaches The method according claim 4, wherein multiple datasets of the plant material are obtained after treatment at different predefined times or by the use of different sensors (([0199] lines 6-14, “Several images were generated (FIG. 2, FIG. 5): an image where only the Far-Red photons were recorded by the camera chip (Far-Red image), an image where only the Cyan photons were recorded (Cyan image) an image where only the Yellow photons (Yellow image) were recorded and an image where transmitted light was recorded (Brightfield image). A 2× objective lens was used to produce a Far-Red image with a field of view covering the entire well.”); [0147] lines 15-23, “A 10× objective lens may be used to produce a set of 1-9 Far-Red images, 1-9 Cyan images, 1-9 Yellow images and 1-9 Brightfield images that cover a small portion of one well, for example, 1/32.sup.nd-⅓.sup.rd of the well bottom surface. In some embodiments of the invention, images are overlaid with the outline of an object created by another image. Images may be overlaid with outlines created by images using the same or different photons.”). The generation of Far-Red, Cyan, and Yellow images using only respective photons is using different sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the images, being overlaid, are separately generated images, recording different wavelengths of transmitted light, and therefore each set of photon to form the image is separately sensed.
Regarding claim 11, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein the dataset of the plant material can subsequently be decomposed ([0153] “Alternatively, all or a subset of raw variables may be selected which describe a phenotypic difference between the plants treated with a candidate herbicide and a negative or a positive control.”) into single datasets of different parts of the plant material ([0070] lines 1-3, “As used herein, the term “phenotype” will be taken to mean a set of observable characteristics of an individual, for example, an individual plant, or a part of said plant.”; [0157] lines 11-15, “Non-limiting examples of morphological and/or physiological characteristics which may be measured include plant length, plant width, plant shape, plant pigmentation, plant circularity, chlorophyll concentration, and number of cells per plant.”). The explants and vegetative propagules are plant material pieces. The characteristics, or subsets thereof, on the individual plant (i.e. plant material pieces) are the “raw variables” which may be selected in describing phenotypic difference, and therefore is decomposed into single datasets.
Regarding claim 12, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein at least one dataset showing at least one phenotypical characteristic of the plant material before treatment with the chemical substance is obtained ([0110] lines 5-8, “determining whether the test samples provide a phenotypic response to said series of different candidate compounds by comparison to phenotypes of control samples not contacted with candidate compounds.”; [0158] lines 6-12, “The morphological and/or physiological characteristics which may be measured for the control samples also include non-vascular plant length, width, shape, pigmentation, circularity, chlorophyll concentration, and number of cells. The control sample may be a sample of the same non-vascular plant subjected to identical assay conditions as the test sample, but without the addition of the test compound.”). The control sample, without contact to the candidate or test compounds, is the plant material before treatment with the chemical substance.
Regarding claim 13, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein the assigning of the chemical substance to at least one SoA or at least one MoA is carried out by using an adapted program performing a machine learning process ([0156] lines 8-19, “an artificial intelligence algorithm, for example, a Random Forest algorithm, may be used for prediction of mode of action. Alternatively, a Neural Network algorithm may be used for prediction of mode of action. At least 20%, at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70% or at least 80% of data obtained by measuring the phenotypic response of the plant to a positive control compound may be used as training data for an artificial intelligence algorithm used to predict mode of action. Statistical tests may be used to determine the probability that a “hit” matches a phenotypic model generated by artificial intelligence”). The artificial intelligence algorithm, such as neural network algorithm trained on obtained data, is the adapted program performing a machine learning process.
Regarding claim 14, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein the SoA-and/or MoA-compendium is augmented by recording of data of at least one reference substance of a further SoA and/or MoA ([0104] lines 4-13, “In some embodiments of the present invention, natural compounds may be processed prior to inclusion in a compound library. A non-limiting example of a suitable processing technique, which is well known to those skilled in the art, is solid phase extraction. In further embodiments of the invention, combinatorial libraries to be screened may be synthesised in the compartments in which the assay is carried out, thereby providing reference addresses for candidate compounds”).
Regarding claim 15, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein an uncharacterized SoA and/or MoA is identified for each chemical substance not assignable to any recorded SoA and/or MoA in the SoA-and/or MoA- compendium ([0155] lines 18-29, “if a “hit” falls outside of clusters associated with a known mode of action positive control, the hit may be visually inspected for the presence of atypical symptoms, and if atypical symptoms are observed the hit may be predicted to have a novel mode of action. In some embodiments of the invention, a “hit” cannot be predicted to be either a known or novel mode of action. In this scenario, the hit may be manually progressed to a dose-response experiment where plants are treated with a range of concentrations of the “hit” ranging from 1 nM to 50 000 nM and all resulting datapoints are processed and re-analysed according to the methods described herein. Exemplary concentrations for such a dose-response experiment may range from 1 nM to 50 000 nM.”). The detected “hit”, being outside the cluster associated with known mode of action, which is further investigated and analyzed, is the uncharacterized MoA.
Regarding claim 17, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein the plant material belongs to the plant species Arabidopsis thaliana ([0012] lines 14-16, “ Currently, the herbicide industry uses the dicot Arabidopsis thaliana as the gold standard screening system.”; Table 1).
Regarding claim 18, Champion teaches The method according claim 1, wherein the chemical substance is a plant growth regulator ([0045] lines 3-8, “contacting a candidate compound identified to have herbicidal or plant growth regulating activity in steps (i) and (ii) with a series of mutagenized samples comprising whole-plants, spores, sporelings, explants, protoplasts or vegetative propagules, wherein the test and mutagenised samples are from the same species of non-vascular plan”; [0100] lines 1-5, “The present invention provides high-throughput methods capable of screening compounds for herbicidal activity or plant growth regulating activity, thus affording the potential for the discovery of new herbicides or plant growth regulators.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champion as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Munera et al. (Sandra Munera, José Blasco, Jose M. Amigo, Sergio Cubero, Pau Talens, Nuria Aleixos, Use of hyperspectral transmittance imaging to evaluate the internal quality of nectarines, Biosystems Engineering, Volume 182, 2019, Pages 54-64, ISSN 1537-5110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.04.001.)
Regarding claim 5, Champion teaches The method according claim 4, wherein a light source ([0123] lines 26-27, “the non-vascular plants may be grown under continuous illumination.”) to illuminate the plant material ([0123] lines 28-32, “The illumination may be provided at wavelength/s of between 300 nm to 900 nm (e.g. 400 nm to 700 nm). The illumination may, for example, be ultraviolet (UV) light, visible light, or infrared (IR) light).”).
Champion does not teach the method, wherein the light source with a circular arrangement of lamps and reflective surface is used for the hyperspectral VIS and hyperspectral NIR sensors to homogeneously illuminate the plant material
Munera teaches analogous method of hyperspectral imaging (Abstract), wherein a light source (Fig. 2, lamps) with a circular arrangement of lamps (Fig. 2; p.56, “The lamps were arranged equidistant from each other outside a hemispherical aluminium diffuser”) and reflective surface (Fig. 2; p.55, “The transmission mode may be less susceptible to surface properties and hence better for detecting composition or internal disorders than the reflectance mode”) is used for the hyperspectral VIS and hyperspectral NIR sensors (Fig. 2; p. 56, “The hyperspectral imaging system used to acquire the images in transmittance mode (Fig. 2) was composed of an industrial camera (CoolSNAP ES, Photometrics, AZ, USA), coupled to two liquid-crystal tuneable filters (LCTF) (Varispec VIS-07 and NIR07, Cambridge Research & Instrumentation, Inc., MA, USA).”) to homogeneously illuminate the plant material (p. 56, “The nectarines were oriented so that the pedicel was pointing downwards and directly illuminated by the twelve halogen spotlights (37 W) (Eurostar IR Halogen MR16. Ushio America, Inc., CA, USA) powered by direct current (12 V). The lamps were arranged equidistant from each other outside a hemispherical aluminium diffuser”). The lamps, arranged equidistant from each other as shown in Fig. 2, would homogeneously illuminate the plant material (e.g. nectarines).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Champion to include the light source of Munera because it would yield predictable results of evenly illuminating the imaged object, thereby reducing variability of the image.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champion as applied to claim 6 and 1, respectfully, above, and further in view of Ziegler et al. (Ziegler, G., Terauchi, A., Becker, A., Armstrong, P., Hudson, K. and Baxter, I. (2013), Ionomic Screening of Field-Grown Soybean Identifies Mutants with Altered Seed Elemental Composition. The Plant Genome, 6: plantgenome2012.07.0012. https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2012.07.0012)
Regarding claim 7, Champion teaches The method according claim 6, wherein each well contains at least one piece of plant material ([0123] lines 6-10, “One exemplary embodiment of the invention uses 50-70 spores or sporelings per well of a standard 96-well microtitre plate. Alternatively, the density may be 40-80, 30-90, or 20-100 plants, spores or sporelings per well.”).
Champion does not teach the method, wherein each well contains one piece of plant material
Ziegler teaches analogous method of screening plants (Abstract), wherein each well contains one piece of plant material (p. 2 “Seeds were sorted into 48-well tissue culture plates with one seed per well.”) One seed is one piece of plant material.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Champion to include the one piece of plant material of Ziegler because it would yield predictable results of only testing on one piece of plant material for each well, thereby controlling for singular plants per well and further controlling the screening process.
Regarding claim 16, Champion teaches The method according claim 1.
Champion does not teach the method, wherein the plant material is in a seed or seedling stage at step a.
Ziegler teaches analogous method of screening plants (Abstract), wherein the plant material is in a seed or seedling stage at step a (p. 2, “For each line, six or eight seeds were randomly pulled from the bulk seed packets for analysis. Seeds were sorted into 48-well tissue culture plates with one seed per well.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Champion to include the seed of Ziegler because the use of a seed as a plant material is well known in the art and would yield predictable results in screening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN BUTLER GEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/B.B.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863