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 .
Status of the claims
Claims 1, 4 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 2, 13, 17 and 23 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 and 18-22 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 15, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, last paragraph to page 6, first paragraph of ‘Remarks’ filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection on page 3 of the Office Action mailed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of ‘Remarks’ filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection on pages 3-8 of the Office Action mailed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive, namely in that the cited references do not teach or suggest reducing chlorophyll content or increasing the ratio of anthocyanins to chlorophyll. The rejection has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, a new rejection has been issued to address the newly amended claim, as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New Rejection)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafiq et al (Scientia Horticulturae, 233:141-148, 2018), in view of Patel et al (Foods, 9, 646, pages 1-12, 2020), in view of Whale et al (J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci 132(1):20-28, 2007), in view of Oren-Shamir et al (WO 2019/162952, August 29, 2019).
With regard to claim 1, Shafiq et al teach a method for improving coloration of a plant material comprising pre-harvest treating of a plant material with phenylalanine, wherein improving does not comprise increasing due to a reduction of coloration and wherein said treating does not comprise controlling a pathogenic infection. See, for example, page 142, first column, last paragraph where it teaches using phenylalanine in concentrations of 50, 100 or 200 mg L-1. See, for example, page 143, first column, last paragraph to second column, bridging paragraph where it teaches pre-harvest application of phenylalanine improved red blush on the fruit surface. This also teaches that the improving does not comprise increasing due to a reduction of coloration but rather an improving due to increasing the coloration by pre-harvest spray application of phenylalanine. In addition, Shafiq et al meets the limitation wherein treating does not comprise controlling a pathogenic infection because Shafiq et al does not teach any pathogenic infection with the pre-harvest application.
Shafiq et al do not teach the limitation of pre-harvest or post-harvest treating of a plant material with phenylalanine in an effective amount of 2 mM to 20 mM; however, Patel et al teach treating fruit with different concentrations of phenylalanine ranging from 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 mM. See, for example, pages 3-4, Sections 2.3 and 2.5 where it teaches concentrations of phenylalanine within the range of 2 mM and 20 mM for both pre-harvest and post-harvest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the concentrations of 50, 100 or 200 mg L-1 of phenylalanine as taught by Shafiq discussed above, with the concentrations of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 mM of phenylalanine as taught by Patel et al because the substitution of one known element for another would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution.
Shafiq et al do not teach the limitation of improving coloration comprising reducing an amount of chlorophyll, increasing ratio of anthocyanin to said chlorophyll or both in plant material; however, Whale et al teach that the development of red blush (i.e., coloration) coincides with increase concentrations of anthocyanin and decrease concentrations of chlorophylls. See, for example, page 24, first column, second paragraph. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to improve coloration of a plant material by reducing the amount of chlorophyll and/or increasing the ratio of anthocyanin to chlorophyll.
With regard to claim 3, Shafiq et al teach increasing the amount of anthocyanin. See, for example, page 143, second column, last paragraph where it teaches that fruit harvested from the trees sprayed with phenylalanine exhibited significantly higher concentrations of total anthocyanins.
With regard to claim 4, Shafiq et al teach measuring Brix values after pre-harvest application of phenylalanine to apple trees to determine if pre-harvest application of phenylalanine would increase Brix values. See, for example, page 146,Taable 2.
With regard to claim 5, Shafiq et al teach inducing red coloration. See, for example, page 143, second column, bridging paragraph where it teaches that the application of phenylalanine to apple trees produced fruit that exceeded the minimum required level of red blush.
With regard to claims 6 and 22, Shafiq et al teach wherein in the plant material is a fruit. See, for example, page 142, section 2.1 where it teaches apple trees were treated with phenylalanine.
With regard to claim 14, Shafiq et al teach selecting a plant material in need of treatment using phenylalanine. See, for example, page 142, section 2.2 where it teaches selecting apple trees in a treatment using phenylalanine.
With regard to claims 15-16, Shafiq et al teach comparing the amount of anthocyanins of a control plant with that of a plant sprayed with phenylalanine wherein the plant sprayed with phenylalanine had significantly higher concentrations of total anthocyanins. See, for example, page 143, section 3.2 and Figure 1C.
With regard to claim 18, Shafiq et al teach determining total soluble solids and soluble solid/acid ratio. See, for example, page 146, Table 2 where it teaches the effects of pre-harvest spray application of phenylalanine on total soluble solids and soluble solid/acid ratio. Shafiq et al do not teach fruit comprising at least 5% less soluble solids or soluble solid/acid ratio as suitable for pre-harvest or post-harvest treating with phenylalanine; however, such selection would be at the discretion of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 19, Shafiq et al teach treating by spraying phenylalanine. See, for example, page 142, first column, last paragraph where it teaches spraying phenylalanine on experimental trees.
With regard to claim 20, Shafiq et al teach treating in an open field. See, for example, page 142, first column, section 2.1 where it teaches the trees were treated in a commercial orchard.
With regard to claim 21, Shafiq et al teach improving is compared to a control plant material. See, for example, page 142, section 2.2 where it teaches spraying experimental apple trees and not spraying control apple trees.
Shafiq et al do not teach the limitations of claims 7-8 and 12; however, Oren-Shamir et al teach improving resistance to abiotic stressors. See, for example, paragraph 097 where it teaches increased resistance to abiotic stressors such as temperature (i.e., a physical injury) (claims 7-8). Increased resistance to abiotic stressors like temperature would inherently improve damage to a plant. See, for example, paragraph 101 where it teaches abiotic stressors comprising radiation and temperature (claim 12).
Shafiq et al do not teach the limitations of claim 9; however, Oren-Shamir et al teach reducing weight loss %. See, for example, paragraph 128 where it teaches that quantitative factors include reduction in weight.
Shafiq et al do not teach the limitations of claims 10-11; however, Patel et al teach treating fruit with different concentrations of phenylalanine from 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 mM. See, for example, pages 3-4, Sections 2.3 and 2.5 where it teaches concentrations of phenylalanine within the range of 2 mM and 20 mM for both pre-harvest and post-harvest.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the cited references because each of the claimed elements are found within the scope and content of the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH O. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. EST.
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.
/KEITH O. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1661
Prosecution Insights