DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is intended to replace/supersede the previous office action dated 1/26/26.
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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nath et al., “Effect of Freezing and Freeze-drying…” (1975).
Per claim 1, Nath teaches a process of freezing/thawing and storage of pollen (page 81), comprising freezing rapidly (cryopreserved) followed by rapid thawing (page 83), while further stating that the thawing rate is 218C/min which yields high percentages of pollen viability (see page 83), which falls within the claimed range.
Per claims 8-9, Nath teaches pollination with germination rates above 50% (see Fig. 1-3).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath et al., “Effect of Freezing and Freeze-drying…” (1975).
Per claim 10, although Nath is silent regarding thawing a plurality of bulk pollen samples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the process to samples in bulk with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results, as a mere repetition of known steps or increase in throughput is prima facie obvious over the prior art.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath et al., “Effect of Freezing and Freeze-drying…” (1975) in view of Greaves et al. US 5694700.
Per claim 3, Nath silent regarding the claimed thawing steps. Greaves teaches a method for preparation of pollen for cryogenic storage (abstract) by obtaining a cryopreserved bulk pollen sample and rapidly warming the bulk pollen sample (rapidly thawed) (Example 2) so that it prevents ice formation. Greaves teaches thawing by placing samples in vials into a beaker of water which is considered convection or conduction heating with a liquid (Example 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a similar thawing technique as taught by Greaves because Greaves shows that this is a known, suitable, and effective process for thawing samples.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments as stated in the response filed 11/25/26 are persuasive with regard to Cope. However, a new ground of rejection over Nath is presented above. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding Cope are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Due to the new grounds of rejection above, this action is non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights