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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive as it is directed to an invention in a parent application. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Please update the priority statement at the beginning of the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because the limitation "the entire external surface" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase “entire external surface” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “entire external surface”.
Claim 5 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "the total amount" in line 3 is set forth, however, the phrase “total amount” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “total amount”.
Claim 6 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "their pedicels" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase “pedicels” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “total amount”. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "pedicels".
Claim 6 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "the grape berries' external surface" in line 3 is set forth, however, the phrase “grape berries' external surface” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “total amount”. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "grape berries' external surface".
Claim 6 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "the total amount" in line 3 is set forth, however, the phrase “total amount” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “total amount”.
Claim 9 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "the concentration" in line 1 is set forth, however, the phrase “concentration” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “concentration”.
Claim 9 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "the concentration" in lines 2-3 is set forth, however, the phrase “concentration” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “concentration”.
Claim 10 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "applying" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase "applying" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the applying".
Claim 10 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a first aqueous solution" in lines 1-2 is set forth, however, the phrase "a first aqueous solution" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the first aqueous solution".
Claim 10 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a crosslinking agent" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase "a crosslinking agent" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the crosslinking agent".
Claim 10 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "step (b)" in line 3 is set forth, however, the phrase "step (b)" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (b)".
Claim 10 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a second aqueous solution" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase "a second aqueous solution" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the second aqueous solution".
Claim 10 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a polysaccharide" in line 3 is set forth, however, the phrase "a polysaccharide" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the polysaccharide".
Claim 11 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "applying" in line 1 is set forth, however, the phrase "applying" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the applying".
Claim 11 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a first aqueous solution" in lines 1-2 is set forth, however, the phrase "a first aqueous solution" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the first aqueous solution".
Claim 11 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a crosslinking agent" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase "a crosslinking agent" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the crosslinking agent".
Claim 11 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "applying" in line 4 is set forth, however, the phrase "applying" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the applying".
Claim 11 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a second aqueous solution" in line 4 is set forth, however, the phrase "a second aqueous solution" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the second aqueous solution".
Claim 11 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a polysaccharide" in line 4 is set forth, however, the phrase "a polysaccharide" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the polysaccharide".
Claim 12 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a polysaccharide" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase "a polysaccharide" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the polysaccharide".
Claim 12 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "a crosslinking agent" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase "a crosslinking agent" was previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the crosslinking agent".
Claim 13 is objected to because the limitation the limitation "the entire external surface" in line 2 is set forth, however, the phrase “entire external surface” was not previously set forth. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "entire external surface".
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite as the preamble states “forming a protective coating on a postharvest plant matter”, however, lines 8-9 states “forming a protective coating on the exposed surface” which appears to be narrower in scope than what is stated in the preamble. Please review and set forth consistent language.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "of arils" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "of the pomegranate arils".
The phrase “the of the second” in Claim 13 is vague and indefinite as there appears to be extra words.
Claim 15 is vague and indefinite as the preamble states “forming a protective coating on a postharvest plant matter”, however, line 6 states “forming a protective coating on the exposed surface” which appears to be narrower in scope than what is stated in the preamble. Please review and set forth consistent language.
Clarification and/or correction required.
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) 1-2, 7, 8, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kiyoshi (JPH 04288001).
Regarding Claim 1, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches a method for forming a protective coating on a postharvest plant matter (See Abs., paras. 1, 4-16, Claims 1-3, coating of vegetable plant parts.), the method comprising consecutive steps of: (a) applying a first aqueous solution comprising a crosslinking agent at least upon the exposed surface of the second segment of the postharvest plant matter (See Abs., paras. 6-7, 11-16, Claims 1-3, calcium lactate.); and (b) applying a second aqueous solution comprising a polysaccharide, which is susceptible to crosslinking by the crosslinking agent, to the external surface of the plant; thereby forming a protective coating on the exposed surface of the plant following crosslinking of the polysaccharide by the crosslinking agent (See Abs., paras. 4-13, Claims 1-3, where polysaccharide alginate/alginic acid is applied and cross-linked by the calcium lactate crosslinking agent.).
Regarding Claim 2, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches wherein the first aqueous solution and the second aqueous solution are applied to the entire external surface of the plant and wherein the protective coating is formed essentially exclusively on the exposed surface of the postharvest plant matter (See Abs., paras. 4-13, Claims 1-3.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches wherein the polysaccharide is alginate (See Abs., paras. 6-16, Claim 2, polysaccharide alginate/alginic acid.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches wherein the crosslinking agent comprises a cation of calcium ion and/or wherein the crosslinking agent is calcium lactate (See Abs., paras. 9, 11, 13.).
Regarding Claim 10, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches wherein the step of applying a first aqueous solution comprising a crosslinking agent (step (a)), applying a second aqueous solution comprising a polysaccharide or both are performed by a process selected from immersing (See Abs., paras. 6-13, Claims 1-3.).
Regarding Claim 15, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches a method for forming a protective coating on a postharvest plant matter having an external surface comprising a first segment which is covered by natural skin and a second segment which has an exposed surface (See Abs., paras. 1, 4-16, Claims 1-3, coating of vegetable plant parts.), the method comprising: applying a first aqueous solution comprising a crosslinking agent at least upon the exposed surface of the second segment of the postharvest plant matter (See Abs., paras. 4--16, Claims 1-3, calcium lactate.); and forming a protective coating on the exposed surface of the second segment of the postharvest plant matter by subsequently applying at least upon the exposed surface of the second segment of the postharvest plant matter a second aqueous solution comprising a polysaccharide which is susceptible to crosslinking by the crosslinking agent, wherein the protective coating is formed due to crosslinking of the polysaccharide by the crosslinking agent (See Abs., paras. 4-13, Claims 1-3, where polysaccharide alginate/alginic acid is applied and cross-linked by the calcium lactate crosslinking agent.).
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) 3-6, 9, 11, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyoshi (JPH 04288001) in view of Girard (US 2017/0303575).
Regarding Claim 3, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the postharvest plant matter comprises a fruit.
Girard (‘575) teaches coating plant products with cross-linking agents and polysaccharide wherein the plant matter is fruit or vegetable to extend the shell-life of the plant/food product (See Abs., paras. 60-61, 83, 99, grapes.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to apply coating material as taught by Kiyoshi (‘001) to the fruit or vegetable plant products as taught by Girard (‘575) to extend the shelf-life of plant/fruit products. The application of the method to the products in Girard (‘575) would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 4, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein said fruit is a ready-to-eat fruit selected from pomegranate arils and grape berries.
Girard (‘575) teaches coating plant products with cross-linking agents and polysaccharide wherein the plant matter is edible grape fruit berries to extend the shell-life of the plant/food product (See Abs., paras. 60-61, 83, 99, grapes.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to apply coating material as taught by Kiyoshi (‘001) to the fruit or vegetable plant products as taught by Girard (‘575) to extend the shelf-life of plant/fruit products. The application of the method to the products in Girard (‘575) would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding Claims 5, 6, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein at least about 5% of the pomegranate arils' surface is exposed, wherein 100% represents the entire external surface of the total amount of arils and/or wherein the grape berries are separated from their pedicels and wherein at least about 0.5% of the grape berries' surface is exposed, wherein 100% represents the entire external surface of the total amount of berries.
Girard (‘575) teaches coating plant products with cross-linking agents and polysaccharide wherein the plant matter is grape fruit berries to extend the shell-life of the plant/food product (See Abs., paras. 60-61, 83, 99, grapes.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to apply coating material as taught by Kiyoshi (‘001) to the fruit or vegetable plant products as taught by Girard (‘575) to extend the shelf-life of plant/fruit products. The application of the method to the products in Girard (‘575) would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 9, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the concentration of the polysaccharide in the second aqueous solution ranges from about 0.05% (w/w) to about 10% (w/w) and/or the concentration of the crosslinking agent in the first aqueous solution ranges from about 0.05% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w).
Girard (‘575) teaches wherein the concentration of the polysaccharide in the second aqueous solution ranges from about 0.05% (w/w) to about 10% (w/w) (See para. 71.) and/or the concentration of the crosslinking agent in the first aqueous solution ranges from about 0.05% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w) (See para. 75.) to extend the shell-life of the plant/food product (See Abs., paras. 60-61, 83, 99, grapes.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to applying coating material as taught by Kiyoshi (‘001) to the grape fruit berries as taught by Girard (‘575) to extend the shelf-life of plant/fruit products. The application of the method to the products in Girard (‘575) would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim 11, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the step of applying a first aqueous solution comprising a crosslinking agent comprises immersing the plant into said solution for a time period ranging from about 5 sec to about 10 min and/or wherein the step of applying a second aqueous solution comprising a polysaccharide comprises immersing the plant into said solution for a time period ranging from about 10 sec to about 5 min.
Girard (‘575) teaches immersion of the food product in the cross-linking agent solution is typical since it allows a simultaneous contact of all surfaces of the food product coated with the cross-linking agent solution and thus a uniform jellification or cross-linking of the polysaccharide on the food product; a person skilled in the art will appreciate that the immersion time for allowing cross-linking of the polysaccharide solution will be based upon the concentration of cross-linking agent in the solutions and the thickness of the polysaccharide layer to be cross-linked (i.e. generally, the thicker is the layer of polysaccharide to be cross-linked, the longer is the immersion time); for example, an immersion time of about 15-20 seconds in a solution comprising 15% calcium ascorbate would be sufficient to allow proper gel formation while the use of a 0.5% calcium ascorbate solution would require an immersion time of 5 to 8 minutes; accordingly, the food product is typically immersed in the cross-linking agent solution for a period of time ranging from about 1 second to about 15 minutes, and more typically for a period of time ranging from about 10 seconds to about 10 minutes, and even more typically from about 10 seconds to about 4 minutes (See para. 76.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to apply coating material as taught by Kiyoshi (‘001) to the grape fruit berries for the time claimed as taught by Girard (‘575) to extend the shelf-life of plant/fruit products. The application of the method to the products in Girard (‘575) would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 12, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the second aqueous solution comprising a polysaccharide, the first aqueous solution comprising a crosslinking agent, or both further comprise at least one additive selected from the group consisting of an antioxidant, food grade acidulant, preservative, pH modifier, aroma compound, colorant, sweetener, viscosity former, antifoaming agent, adhesion-promoter, plasticizer, emulsifier, surface-tension modifier, humectant, and hydrophobic component.
Girard (‘575) teaches the edible coating may further comprise a flavoring agent, an antimicrobial agent, an antioxidant agent, a nutraceutical agent, an immune response enhancer, a coloring agent, a protein, an amino acid, a vitamin or others food additives to extend the shell-life and enhance the flavor of the plant/food product (See Abs., paras. 60-61, 76, 83, 99.).
Regarding Claim 14, Kiyoshi (‘001) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the exposed surface of the second segment of the postharvest plant matter has an accidentally or intentionally damaged surface including peeled, segmented, extracted, pruned, damaged, and/or cut plant tissue.
It does not matter how damage is caused as the claims are directed to a plant matter, thus, it would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that no matter how a surface became exposed the method of forming a coating would have been applicable to protect the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 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, Emily Le can be reached on 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 November 25, 2024
Prosecution Insights