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
This application claims priority to application CN2023109111691 with the filing date of 07/24/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 are examined herein.
Specification
The specification is objected to for allegedly reciting schematic diagrams for Figures 1-4 (paragraphs 14-17) but do not show diagrams. Images of the method are shown instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The disclosure lacks a proper Information Disclosure Statement. For example, 37 CFR § 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretations
Claims 1 and 5 which recite transferring fibrous root seedlings to a float tray without substrate is interpreted by the examiner to indicate the plants were not removed from the substrate and the substrate was transferred along with the plant.
Claim 4 is interpreted by the examiner to indicate the eggs hatched 3-5 days after application to the roots.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to for reciting “by 1 plant per hole” which should be rewritten to be grammatically correct.
Claim 5 is objected to for reciting “seedlings from each test tobacco seed” which could be interpreted to mean multiple seedlings come from one seed.
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to by the examiner for reciting “during cultivating the infected tobacco seedlings” which should be rewritten to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 does not inherit the limitations of a nitrogen content of 15-20% from preceding Claim 6, but changes it to 2.5-6.5 ‰ . Thus claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 6. Claim 7 fails the infringement test because claim 7 would conceivably be infringed by nitrogen content that would not infringe claim 6. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-10 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following specific errors are representative of the numerous grammatical errors in the claims. Some examples are articulated below.
Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-10 recites undefined terms such as “water film” and “infiltrating”. Is the water film a result from humidity or water naturally present on root surfaces? Is infiltrating fertilizing or watering? What is intensive seedling production?
Claims 1, 6, and 8-9 which recites “shallow water infiltrating and humidifying the substrate” which is unclear as it recites a relative term (i.e. shallow) and is ambiguous on how humidifying the substrate is carried out. Is the water level 1-2 cm deep as was recited in paragraph 29 of the specification? Is the shallow water doing the infiltrating and humidifying or is the substrate being infiltrated and humidified by a person?
Claim 2 does not clearly specify how many drops were applied to each tobacco root.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear if it is directed to the eggs hatching after 3 days of being applied to the roots or if they were hatched at 20-30°C for 3-5 days before being applied to the roots.
Claim 5 is rejected as being indefinite because the “substrate-free second float tray” in line 10 is no longer substrate free after the plant is transferred to it (see claim interpretation).
Claim 8 recites subjective terminology in the phrase “most suitable climatic environment for the root-knot nematode is simulated with a dry-set alternation”. How wet or dry should the system be and how long should each cycle be?
In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims are nonetheless examined.
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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of CN 107771561 A (see translated document) in view of CN 105766573 B (see translated document) and CN 105340842 B (see translated document).
CN 107771561 A is also directed to a method for identifying root-knot nematode resistance in tobacco. It also provides methods for growing tobacco seedlings in a floating plate, inoculating the seedlings with root knot nematodes, and identifying disease resistant germplasm resources (see abstract). Regarding independent Claim 1, which is directed to multiple steps, CN 107771561 A teaches “breeding the tobacco seeds planted in the floating plate, floating seedling placing sunlight greenhouse” (see page 3 paragraph 4) which is interpreted by the examiner to mean “growing” tobacco that was sown and cultivating them in a float system. This is also recited in Claim 1of CN 107771561 A which also teaches inoculating plants and “normal management after inoculating” which is cultivating the infected tobacco seedlings1 and would include infiltrating and humidifying as necessary as well as “disease resistance identification” which is evaluating disease severity as drawn to in Claim 1. Additionally, page 3 point B teaches inoculating seedlings grown to 3-4 true leaves before inoculation which was a limitation in Claim 5 which recited “production seedlings for 20-25 days until 3-4 true leaves grow”.
CN 107771561 A does not explicitly teach the use of fibrous roots or substrate, transplanting the fibrous root seedlings to a float tray with larger holes, dropping a suspension of root-knot nematode eggs onto fibrous roots protruding substrate surface, immersing distal parts of the fibrous roots into water, or hatching the root-knot nematode eggs in a water film on a surface of the fibrous roots. It also does not teach cultivating infected tobacco seedlings in shallow water and cultivating the plants to induce disease. The limitations of Claim 5 directed to a two-stage seedling production in the float system is also not disclosed.
CN 105766573 B is directed to identifying tobacco verities resistant to Capsici (which is another disease that targets tobacco roots) with a small workload and high efficiency. It also appears to teach the use of a float system and inoculating fibrous roots.
CN 105766573 B recites the following steps on pages 3-4.
(1) first stage breeding: the tobacco seed sowing first floating seedling with substrate in the seedling for 30~40 days, then for 2~3 days, then selecting the seedling;
(2) the second stage: step (1) selecting the seedling together with medium transplantation into the second floating seedling stroma free, breeding for 10~20 days, the seedling culturing to root through the second floating plate into floating pool, then removing weak seedling, screening consistent growth of tobacco, leaf, and fibrous root of seedling for inoculating
…
(4) dipping inoculating root wound: the step (2) obtained tobacco seedling connecting together leaching for 1~2 days and the second floating seedling, then scraping the second floating seedling is exposed, the step (3) to obtain the tobacco capsici travelling spore suspension into the pan, then immersing the second seedling into pan, alternately under the condition 12h dark illumination 12h,maintaining the inoculated 24~36 hours in seedling trays;
(5) disease identification: after continuously floating culture of seedling inoculation, investigating once every 7 day black shank disease of tobacco seedling incidence a, survey for 3~4 times
Points (1) and (2) above are interpreted by the examiner to teach the limitations of culturing plants in a float system until fibrous roots penetrate out of the float tray into a float pool to obtain fibrous root seedlings for treatment (i.e. Claim 1). While they did not drop a suspension of the pathogen onto the fibrous roots, it appears they immersed the fibrous roots into a solution with the pathogen for direct inoculation. Because the plants were continuously floated (presumably in shallow water with distal parts of the fibrous roots in the water which were limitations in Claims 1 and 5) and investigated every 7 days 3~4 times with specific conditions (i.e. point (5) above), the examiner interprets this to include inducing a disease by simulating climatic environment for the pathogen. Regarding immediate Claim 5, points (1) and (2) listed above in CN 105766573 B are interpreted by the examiner to be a “two-stage seedling production in the float systema’ as was directed to in Claim 5. The first step also teaches growing seedlings for 30-40 days, then for 2-3 days, then selecting. Presumably this selecting process is for regular and consistent seedlings. Step 2 more clearly addresses the limitation of selecting regular and consistent seedlings for fibrous roots as it recites “removing weak seedling, screening consistent growth of tobacco, leaf, and fibrous root of seedling for inoculating”. However, this selection process is after the second step in the seedling production process
While CN 107771561 A teaches inoculating soil with eggs, CN 107771561 A and CN 105766573 B do not explicitly teach the inoculation of roots with nematode eggs.
CN 105340842 B is directed to a method that develops nematodes with specific ages for molecular or biological research. It teaches the inoculation by dropping a suspension of wheat cyst nematodes onto roots on page 14 paragraph 2, which was a limitation of Claim 1. Additionally, it also teaches the culturing of the infected plants on page 14 paragraph 3.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as the first two are directed to cultivating tobacco roots in a hydroponic system using float trays and inoculating the plant with a pathogen and screening for resistance while CN 105340842 B is directed to culturing nematodes for root infection. One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success the applicant’s method would be successful as methods for germinating seeds on floating treys (including a two-stage seedling production system), thinning and selecting plants with comparable growth, inoculating plants, then transferring the plant back to a float system are already known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop such a method as this, and similar, systems reduce artificial error, shortens labor cost, takes up less space, and is easier to manage as was recited on page 5 paragraph 4 of CN 105766573 B. The examiner notes that while teachings in the listed art do not explicitly teach the steps of specific hole sizes of treys, using a most suitable climatic environment, dropping suspension of root-knot nematode eggs onto fibrous roots, how many days the seeds are germinated at each step (etc.), such limitations appear to be mere design choices as the criticality of each have not been demonstrated and would have been obvious based on the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaiteh, F., C. Kwoseh, and R. Akromah. "Evaluation of tomato genotypes for resistance to root-knot nematodes" (2012).
Claims 2 and 4 draw dependence from Claim 1 which was previously rejected based on the
teachings of 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B (see above).
CN 105766573 B also teaches the limitation of culturing the treated roots at a temp for 22-30 °C on page 8 paragraph 3 (i.e. Claim 4).
CN 105340842 B teaches the method of inoculation by dropping a suspension of wheat cyst nematodes onto roots on page 14 paragraph 2. It also teaches dropping 1000 µL which is identical to the 1 ml volume of Claim 2.
107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B do not explicitly teach inoculating with of 500-1000 eggs/mL which corresponds to 500 -2000 eggs/plant based on the limitations of Claim 2. It also does not teach the limitations of the eggs taking 3-5 days to hatch.
Jaiteh et al 2012 is directed to “determin[ing] the best egg inoculum level for screening tomatoes for resistance to root-knot nematodes” (see page 2 paragraph 5) and teaches inoculating potted seedlings with 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 eggs per pot (see page 3 paragraph 4) which is the same number of eggs per plant claimed by the applicant in Claim 2.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, CN 105340842 B and Jaiteh et al 2012 to generate a method for screening tobacco cultivars for resistance against root-knot nematodes. The new limitations introduced in Claims 2 and 4 have already been demonstrated in the afore mentioned references which are directed to culturing nematodes and screening for nematode (or other tobacco root pests/pathogens) resistance meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these concentrations and temperatures and have a high expectancy of success. The days for root-knot nematodes eggs to hatch (i.e. Claim 4) is not an inventive concept, but a mere outcome of the conditions used and optimization of methods. Additionally, because root-knot nematodes have a short lifespan of approximately 4 weeks2, a short hatch date is inherent to the set up. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop such a method as similar systems reduce artificial error, shortens labor cost, takes up less space, and are easier to manage as was recited on page 5 paragraph 4 of CN 105766573 B.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nikolov, Neiko V., et al. "Design of a small-scale hydroponic system for indoor farming of leafy vegetables." Agriculture 13.6 (2023): 1191 and Kratky, B. A. "Three non-circulating hydroponic methods for growing lettuce." International Symposium on Soilless Culture and Hydroponics 843. 2008.
Claim 3 draws dependence from Claim 1 which was previously rejected based on the
teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B (see above).
CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B does not explicitly teach maintaining the distance between the bottom of the float tray and water surface at 1-4 cm.
Nikolov et al 2023 is directed to designing small-scale hydroponic systems for indoor farming of leafy vegetables using an Internet of Things (IoT) system which allowed for remote monitoring of the system. It also teaches the use of a “hydroponic floating system is a water conscious system where a plant is placed in a floating net pot on the surface of water, and the content of inorganic fertilizers contained in the media is the main source of nutrients for the plants“ (see page 2 paragraph 3). Systems for maintaining water level (i.e. distance between float tray and water surface) are disclosed on page 3 paragraph 2 and page 4 first bullet point.
While Nikolov et al 2023 teaches maintaining a water level, it does not teach a distance of 1-4 cm between the bottom of the float tray and the water level.
Kratky et al 2008 is also directed to non-circulating hydroponic methods and teaches the use of “moist air space” in the discussion, Fig. 1, and page 3 paragraph 1. It also recites “Roots occupying the moist air space above the solution have been described as oxygen roots whose main function is aeration; these roots experience vigorous lateral and branching growth”. The hydroponic systems called “Float-support system” on page 5 paragraph 4 to page 6 paragraph 1 recites the moist air space can be 3-9 cm at harvest. This range includes the distances recited in Claim 3 and show that the applicant’s claim distance is likely prevalent in other systems, absent evidence to the contrary.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 in view of Nikolov et al 2023 and Kratky et al 2008 to generate a method for screening tobacco resistance against root-knot nematodes. The new limitations introduced in Claim 3 have already been identified in the afore mentioned references which are directed to maintaining water levels (i.e. Nikolov et al 2023) and a distance of 1-4 cm (i.e. Kratky et al 2008) from the bottom of the float tray. Because methods for carrying this out and the distance recited in Claim 3 are known in the art, one with ordinary skill would have been motivated to use them with a high expectancy of success. The motivation for why one of ordinary skill in the art would want to leave a distance between the float tray and the water surface between 1-4 cm is obvious based on the teachings of Kratky et al 2008 as roots in this region show increased growth and promote aeration (page 3 paragraph 1 of Kratky et al 2008). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop such a method as similar systems reduce artificial error, shortens labor cost, takes up less space, and are easier to manage as was recited on page 5 paragraph 4 of CN 105766573 B.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Malhotra, Suresh K. "Water soluble fertilizers in horticultural crops-An appraisal." Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 86.10 (2016): 1245-56 and Trientini, Fernanda, and Paul R. Fisher. "Hydroponic fertilizer supply for basil using controlled-release fertilizer." HortScience 55.10 (2020): 1683-1691.
Claims 6-7 draws dependence from Claim 1 which was previously rejected based on the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B (see above).
Prior art CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B does not explicitly teach the use of water soluble fertilizer and applying every 7-10 days with specific Nitrogen:P2O5:K2O contents.
Malhotra et al 2016 is directed to the use of water soluble fertilizers and mentions their use in hydroponic/aeroponic systems in the abstract. The section starting on page 3 paragraph 2 is directed to water-soluble fertilizers while Table 1 teaches various nutrient compositions with “N”, “P2O5”, and “K2O”concentrations referenced in Claim 6, specifically NPK (18-18-18), NPK (6-12-36), and (13-40-13) in Table 1. While NPK (6-12-36) teaches a water soluble fertilizer with 6% N (i.e. Claim 7)
Malhotra et al 2016 does not teach applying fertilizer to the system every 7-10 days.
Trientini et al 2020 is also directed to small scale hydroponic systems and fertilization management (see abstract). It is directed to studies directed to comparing controlled-released fertilizers (CRF) to water-soluble fertilizers (WSF). The WSF treatments required weekly replacement (also described in the abstract). Because the fertilizer was replaced weekly, it was “applied every 7-10 days during cultivation” which was a limitation of Claim 6.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 in view of Malhotra et al 2016 and Trientini et al 2020 to generate a method for screening tobacco resistance against root-knot nematodes. The new limitations introduced in Claims 6-7 directed to specific NPK concentrations in a fertilizers and reapplying fertilizer every 7-10 days are known in the art meaning one with ordinary skill would have been motivated to use them with a high expectancy of success. While Malhotra et al 2016 does not teach a fertilizer with the exact concentrations required by Claims 6-7, it certainly demonstrates concentration of any component can be adjusted to meet the needs of the grower. Additionally page 3 paragraph 3 recites “Various water soluble grade fertilizers can be used at different growth stages of crops either alone or in combination to improve the crop productivity”. Additionally the number of days between applications is a mere design choice as the criticality for this specific length of time has not been demonstrated or recited by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop such a method as similar systems reduce artificial error, shortens labor cost, takes up less space, and are easier to manage as was recited on page 5 paragraph 4 of CN 105766573 B.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 and Malhotra et al 2016 and Trientini et al 2020 as applied to Claim 7 and further in view of Jaiteh et al 2012.
Claim 8 draws dependence from Claim 7 which was previously rejected based on the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 and Malhotra et al 2016 and Trientini et al 2020 as applied to Claim 7 (see above). CN 105766573 B also teaches the limitation of culturing the treated roots at a temp for 22-30°C on page 8 paragraph 3 (i.e. Claim 8).
Prior art CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, CN 105340842 B, Malhotra et al 2016, and Trientini et al 2020 does not explicitly teach the use of an alternating dry-wet climactic environment to induce and form root knot nematodes.
Jaiteh et al 2012 is directed to “determin[ing] the best egg inoculum level for screening tomatoes for resistance to root-knot nematodes” (see page 2 paragraph 5) and teaches inoculating potted seedlings with 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 eggs per pot as well as watering the plant every 24 hours with 500 ml of tap-water (i.e. dry-wet alternation; see page 3 paragraph 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, CN 105340842 B, Malhotra et al 2016 , Trientini et al 2020, and Jaiteh et al 2012 to generate a method for screening tobacco resistance against root-knot nematodes. Because watering schedules for plants inoculated with root-knot nematodes induce a dry-wet alternation, the new limitations introduced in Claims 8 are known in the art meaning one with ordinary skill would have been motivated to use them with a high expectancy of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop such a method as similar systems reduce artificial error, shortens labor cost, takes up less space, and are easier to manage as was recited on page 5 paragraph 4 of CN 105766573 B.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Zhao, Qian, et al. "Identification, genetic diversity, and pathogenicity of Ralstonia pseudosolanacearum causing cigar tobacco bacterial wilt in China." FEMS Microbiology Ecology 99.3 (2023): fiad018.
Claims 9-10 draw dependence from Claim 1 which was previously rejected based on the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B. CN 107771561 A also teaches the limitation of evaluating disease severity from root-knot nematode and assigning a grade at “1.5~2.5” months on page 3 paragraph 6 which encompasses the 40-50 day limitation of Claim 9. It also teaches a method for calculating a disease index on the bottom of page 3 (paragraph 23 in untranslated document). While the equation is not written the same way as applicant’s, it appears to be identical and provides the same results as the equation in Claim 9 when used with the applicant’s data in Table 1.
Prior art CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, and CN 105340842 B, does not explicitly teach the same grading criteria recited in claim 9 or the ranges used to assign resistance grades according to the disease index (i.e. Claim 10).
Zhao et al 2023 is directed to identifying genetic diversity (i.e. resistance to a pathogen) in tobacco strains (see table 4 for an example). It also provides an example of how they assigned disease level as was drawn to in Claim 9 lines 4-9 (i.e. assigning grades based on disease severity). Zhao et al 2023 also teaches a method of “evaluation of differences among the varieties resistance reactions was performed in accordance with ‘Identification of Disease Resistance of Tobacco Varieties … as follows: DS values of 0 = immunity (I); 0.1–20 = highly resistant (HR); 20.1–40 = moderate resistance (MR); 40.1–60 = moderate susceptible (MS); 60.1–80 = susceptible (S); and 80.1–100 = highly susceptible (HS)” (see page 5 paragraph 2). The disease severity scale is identical to the disease index used by applicant in Claim 10 with slight changes in the nomenclature (i.e. using HR instead of MR).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of CN 107771561 A, CN 105766573 B, CN 105340842 B and Zhao et al 2023 to generate a method for screening tobacco resistance against root-knot nematodes. The limitations of measuring disease severity after 40-50 days is a length of time known in the art and designing a grading scale and using a disease index is not an inventive concept but a mere optimization of the methods obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as thei criticality of this specific of this specific grading system not been demonstrated. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to develop such a method as similar systems reduce artificial error, shortens labor cost, takes up less space, and are easier to manage as was recited on page 5 paragraph 4 of CN 105766573 B.
Examiner’s Final Note:
Limitations such hole sizes in the float trays, infiltrating and humidifying the substrate, hatching the root-knot nematode eggs for 3-5 days, specific lengths of days until seedlings are transferred or selected are not explicitly mentioned in the aforementioned references. Other limitations not explicitly taught by the cited art are fertilizers with the specific concentrations recited, dry-wet alternation or the specific grad scale recited in Claim 9. However, these limitations appear to be mere design choices resulting from optimization of methods and/or are inherent to the method(s) taught in the art, and would have been obvious to try by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed. Additionally, no criticality or unexpected results of any of these limitations to the success of screening tobacco varieties for root-knot nematode resistance have been clearly described in the disclosure.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE W MEYER whose telephone number is (571)272-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am- 5:00 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, 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.
/GEORGE W MEYER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
1 To produce second-instar larva presumably
2 See figure 1b of Rutter, William B., Jessica Franco, and Cynthia Gleason. "Rooting out the mechanisms of root-knot nematode–plant interactions." Annual Review of Phytopathology 60 (2022): 43-76.
Prosecution Insights