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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 23, 25-26, 29, 57 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-12, 21, 32-35, 41, 58 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 2 recites the “particles are… inactivated”, while dependent claim 3 recites “the radiation being effective to eliminate and/or deactivate constituents”. It is not clear if inactivating has the same meaning as deactivating. It is not clear if inactivating/deactivating is required, or optional.
The term “high-level” in claim 58 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant argues that ‘high-level” would mean “at least 1 MeV”. Applicant should consider amending the claim to cite this specific range, if that is their wish. However, this may raise new issues if attempted in an After-Final amendment.
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.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-12, 21, 32-35, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples [WO 02/32230A1] in view of Hayashi [JP 2000304900A].
Staples teaches the production of radiation sterilized seed bait (title) comprising seeds and/or grains (page 3, lines 1-7), emitting 5-50 kGy radiation to seed/grain passing by an emitter in the form of an x-ray tube or particle accelerator for an electron beam (page 3, lines 18-24), the radiation sterilizing the seed/grain and preventing subsequent germination (page 2, line 30 to page 3, line 1; page 5, Example 3), applying a pest control agent to the irradiated seed/grain (page 2, lines 8-27), and spreading irradiated seed/grain as bait for pests (page 3, lines 26-31).
Staples does not explicitly recite agitating, an agitator with a holder/carrier (claim 2), a mechanical agitator using vibration or oscillations (claim 21), an input (claim 32), an output (claim 33), a pathway (claim 35), shielding (claim 41).
Hayashi teaches an electron beam device and particle sterilizing method (title) comprising an agitator (Figure 1, #6), an irradiator (Figure 1, #1), disinfecting grains and seeds such as wheat, rice, beans, buckwheat, and pepper (paragraph 0001), sterilizing irradiation with low penetration over the entire surface of the rotating particles (page 5, 6th paragraph), the mechanical agitator providing vibratory movement along a path of a holder/carrier(Figure 1, #6; page 5, 1st paragraph), an input (Figure 1, #11), an output (Figure 1, #12), and radiation shielding (Figure 1, #3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed agitating and other physical features into the invention of Staples, in view of Hayashi, since both are directed to methods of irradiating grain/seeds, since Staples already included emitting 5-50 kGy radiation to seed/grain passing by an emitter in the form of an x-ray tube or particle accelerator for an electron beam (page 3, lines 18-24) but simply did not mention what other physical components were used, since seed/grain irradiation systems commonly included an agitator (Figure 1, #6), an irradiator (Figure 1, #1), the mechanical agitator providing vibratory movement along a path of a holder/carrier (Figure 1, #6; page 5, 1st paragraph), an input (Figure 1, #11), an output (Figure 1, #12), and radiation shielding (Figure 1, #3) as shown by Hayashi; since agitation during the irradiation of Staples would have better ensured that the seed/grain received a sufficient amount of energy from different sides, since shielding would have prevented the escape of potentially harmful radiation into the surrounding environment, since an input and output would have provided a simple and efficient means for supplying and collecting the seed/grain of Staples, and since the claimed physical elements would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type, size, and quantity of seed/grain, the desired time and intensity of the irradiation, and/or the desired amount of energy to be absorbed by the seed/grain of Staples, in view of Hayashi.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples, in view of Hayashi, as applied above, and further in view of Sun [CN 108935661A].
Staples and Hayashi teach the above mentioned concepts. Staples does not explicitly recite high energy level electron radiation (claim 58). Sun teaches a method for sterilizing walnuts using a high-energy electron bean radiation (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed high energy level electron radiation into the invention of Staples, in view of Hayashi and Sun, since all are directed to methods of sterilizing food particles, since Staples already included a particle accelerator for making an electron beam, since Hayashi also included an electron beam system, since food sterilization systems commonly used high-energy electron bean radiation (abstract) as shown by Sun, and since a higher energy electron beam would have enabled faster treatment of the seed/grain of Staples and thus enabled greater throughput of product.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dally et al disclose an electron beam treatment system of moving grain with turbulence Figure 4, #48; Figure 8), Meneses (US 2019/0183137A1) discloses electron beam treatment on a conveyor (Figure 2), Meneses (US 2019/0183136A1) discloses electron beam treatment of grain in free fall (Figure 1, #20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-6, 9, 11-12, 21, 32-35, 41, 58 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights