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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 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 5 states “less than 300 mm2, less than 30 mm2”. This is repetitive. Please amend. 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 1 -4, 7, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGillivray et al (5213836) in view of Stewart (962,597) . McGillivray, col. 2, teaches w here the starting material is sugar beets as received from growers, they are first washed to remove extraneous matter and impurities, steam-peeled, and sliced into cossettes approximately 1/8"-3/16" thick and 2"-5" (50-127) mm long in a V-shaped cross-section. The drained sugar beet cossettes or pulp material are blanched with hot water or steam to raise the temperature of the material to 100.degree. C. for up to 2 minutes. Although McGillivray teaches cossettes approximately 1/8"-3/16" thick and 2"-5" (50-127) mm long , this reference does not teach a uniform length. Stewart, col. 1, teaches the practice has been to cut the beets into uniform and clear cut slices or cossettes through which the water was flowed to extract the sugar constituent. It 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 to have uniform cossettes such as a uniform length width and thickness to ensure uniform extraction of sugars from the cossettes. Regarding claim 2, the reference teaches cossettes approximately 1/8"-3/16" thick and 2"-5" (50-127) mm . Regarding claim 3, i t 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 to have uniform cossettes such as a uniform length width and thickness to ensure uniform extraction of sugars from the cossettes. Therefore, the standard deviation of the length of the cossettes would be small such as less than 10mm as claimed in claim 3. Regarding claim 4, the reference teaches cossettes approximately 1/8"-3/16" thick and 2"-5" (50-127) mm. Therefore, 100% of the cossettes exceed a length of 50 mm. Regarding claim 7, the reference teaches w here the starting material is sugar beets as received from growers, they are first washed . Regarding claim 9, the reference teaches t he drained sugar beet cossettes or pulp material are blanched with hot water . Regarding claims 11-12, McGillivray , col. 2, teaches s ucrose is then extracted from the blanched cossettes, after which a beet pulp slurry remains. I t 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 to separate the sucrose from the slurry to further process the sucrose and slurry separately. Claim s 1 , 5-7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liulka et al (2015) in view of Stewart (962,597) . Liulka, page 338, teaches d uring the research beet slicing machine RBA-2-12 was set with: each double-row frame of beet slicing machine №1 (that cuts chips for 1st extraction device) was set with knives of keningsfeld type with a vertical angle of 60 ° (the first row of each frame) and plane blades (second number of frames); each double-row frame of beet slicing machine №2 (that cuts chips for 2st extraction device) was set knives of keningsfeld type alternately performing A and B of 8.25 mm increments for grooved cossettes. A fter starting the centrifugal beet slicing machines the cross-sectional area of grooved cossettes (Fig. 3.a) and triangular cossettes (Fig. 3.b) was set the same, changing the lift height of the blades. Although the reference teaches cossettes , this reference does not teach a uniform length. Stewart, col. 1, teaches the practice has been to cut the beets into uniform and clear cut slices or cossettes through which the water was flowed to extract the sugar constituent. It 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 to have uniform cossettes such as a uniform length width and thickness to ensure uniform extraction of sugars from the cossettes. Regarding claim 5, Liulka , table 1, teaches c ossettes with averaged cross-sectional area of 9.15 mm2 . Regarding claim 6, i t 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 to feed the sugar beets into the slicer in the same orientation to ensure uniform sizing. Regarding claim 7, Liulka teaches b eet cossette was obtained from beets belonging to categories 1 and 2. Regarding claims 9 and 11-12, Liulka teaches by the conventional methods the sucrose content in extracted cossettes of each group was determinated. I t 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 that conventional methods of extracting the sucrose involve mixing the cossettes with water and then extracting and separating the sucrose from the pulp. Regarding claim 10 , Liulka teaches b eet cossette was obtained from beets belonging to categories 1 and 2. Category 1 includes fresh, healthy, with normal turgor (water loss is less than 5%), frost-undamaged beet containing less than 1% of roots that blossomed (woody) and a small number (10%) of beet with strong mechanical damage, and those that have less than 3% green material and contamination (quantity of foreign material) to 10% and were collected in late September and early October. This reference does not teach a cleaning step. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGillivray et al (5213836) in view of Stewart (962,597) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Weng et al (CN104081995, English translation). Although the references teach sugar beets, the references do not teach the artificial cultivation. Weng teaches planting high yield sugar beets. Weng teaches a method for planting high yielding sugar beets comprising performing seedling management by performing artificial cultivation which involves performing tillage and weeding process, applying seed fertilizer in a side position of 5-6 cm below seed, applying 4-5 kg phosphate fertilizer/mu and 3-4 kg nitrogenous fertilizer/mu, providing ridges, allowing germination of seeds, and replanting seedlings . It 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 to use artificial cultivation as taught by Weng to grow sugar beets as taught by the references above to obtain a high yield of sugar beets. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liulka et al (2015) in view of Stewart (962,597) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Weng et al (CN104081995, English translation). Although the references teach sugar beets, the references do not teach the artificial cultivation. Weng teaches planting high yield sugar beets. Weng teaches a method for planting high yielding sugar beets comprising performing seedling management by performing artificial cultivation which involves performing tillage and weeding process, applying seed fertilizer in a side position of 5-6 cm below seed, applying 4-5 kg phosphate fertilizer/mu and 3-4 kg nitrogenous fertilizer/mu, providing ridges, allowing germination of seeds, and replanting seedlings . It 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 to use artificial cultivation as taught by Weng to grow sugar beets as taught by the references above to obtain a high yield of sugar beets. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US6032409 teaches a support for cultivating a plant. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5836 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10am- 6pm M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Coris Fung can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5713 . 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. /STEFANIE J COHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1732 3/13/26