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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 10-20) in the reply filed on 13 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 10-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to the election of Group II in the restriction requirement mailed 29 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 February 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The examiner further notes that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 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 or by applicant in the IDS submitted 20 February 2024, they have not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, line 3 recites the limitation “for a plant in a plant population” which should be amended to recite “for a plant in
Regarding claim 11, line 8 recites the limitation “obtaining a -value plot” which should be amended to recite “obtaining a p-value plot” to improve the clarity of the claim. Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also objected to.
Further regarding claim 11, line 14 recites the limitation “is the ERF” which should be amended to recite “[[is]] as the ERF” for grammatical clarity. Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-17 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 11 is generally indefinite as it comprises several instances of inconsistent and/or unclear language that is indefinite to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Examples of which are as follows:
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the limitation “deriving the difference of the mean spectra obtained in Step 1 between elicitor-treated and mock control-treated samples” on lines 5-6 is intended to convey. Line 2 of claim 11 recites the limitation “obtaining the mean of 60 Raman spectra from each individual biological sample”. Finding a mean of a plurality of spectra typically outputs a single averaged spectrum that is representative of the plurality of spectra. However, applicant uses the term “the mean spectra”. Is “the mean spectra” intended to recite “the mean spectrum of the 60 Raman spectra”? Is “the mean spectra” referring to each acquired mean spectrum from the individual biological samples? Is “the mean spectra” referring to corresponding the mean spectra for elicitor-treated samples and the mean spectra for mock control treated samples? Because these questions cannot be ascertained by a person having ordinary skill in the art, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also indefinite. The examiner assumes that lines 5-6 of claim 11 is intended to convey that a difference between the mean spectrum of 60 Raman spectra for each individual biological sample that comprises an elicitor treatment and the mean spectrum of 60 Raman spectra for each individual biological sample that comprises a mock control treatment is derived. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the limitation “differential Raman spectra obtained in Step 2” recited on line 9 is referring to. Step 2 of claim 11, as best understood by the examiner, recites the derivation of a difference between the mean spectrum of each individual biological sample that comprises an elicitor treatment and the mean spectrum of each individual biological sample that comprises a mock control treatment. The “difference” recited on line 5 would refer to some sort of differential spectrum and, since the difference spectrum presumably between the mean of 60 Raman spectra of a treated sample and a control sample, the term “difference” appears to represent the recited “differential Raman spectra” on line 9. However, line 6 of claim 11 also recites that “different Raman spectral regions” are highlighted, and line 9 of claim 11 also recites “the differential Raman spectral regions”. It is thus unclear if the limitation “differential Raman spectra obtained in Step 2” is intended to refer to the term “the difference” on line 5 of claim 11, or if the limitation is referring to “the different Raman spectral regions” on line 6. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also indefinite. The examiner assumes the limitation “differential Raman spectra obtained in Step 2” recited on line 9 of claim 11 is intended to refer to the term “the difference” on line 5. The examiner is interpreting line 6 of claim 11 to recite a limitation similar to ‘deriving differential Raman spectra based on a difference…’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 11, line 9 also recites the limitation “the differential Raman spectral regions”. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to the “different Raman spectral regions” recited on line 6 of claim 11, or if this limitation is intended to refer to the differential Raman spectra obtained in Step 2 which is previously recited on line 9. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also indefinite. The examiner assumes the limitation “the differential Raman spectral regions” recited on line 9 of claim 11 is intended to recite ‘the different Raman spectral regions’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 11, lines 10-12 recite the limitation “wherein the p-value plot was corrected by including an estimation of the positive false discovery rate (pFDR) and applying the multiple-hypothesis testing principle”. The limitation recited on lines 10-12 of claim 11 is recited passively (i.e. “wherein the p-value plot was…”). A claim is only limited by its positively recited elements. See MPEP § 2115. When the steps of a method claim are written in past tense, it becomes unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art as to whether the method steps are intended to be positively recited claim elements that impose meaningful limits on the claim or not. This lack of clarity leads to uncertainty regarding the scope of the method, as it is unclear what limitations, if any, actually limit the claim. In this instance, due to the passive term “was”, it is unclear if the p-value plot correction is intended to be an active step in the method of claim 11, or if the p-value plot correction is pre-existing. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes lines 10-12 of claim 11 is intended to recite ‘wherein the p-value is corrected…’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 11, line 13 recites the limitation “defining the area under the curve of the differential Raman spectral region”. It is unclear what applicant intends to convey with this limitation. A region is typically defined as a specific area or location which can be located in proximity to a graphical curve, but is not the curve itself. It is unclear what “the curve of the differential Raman spectral region” (emphasis added via bolded words) is referring to. Furthermore, the limitation “the curve” recited on line 13 lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. The curve that the limitation on line 13 is referring to is not defined elsewhere in the claim. The curve could refer to an individual curve of the curves of the 60 Raman spectra, the curve of a mean spectrum for an individual biological sample, the curve of the differential Raman spectra, or even the curve of the p-value plot. Additionally, the term “the differential Raman spectral region” does not have proper antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 11 previously recites “different Raman spectral regions with positive values” (emphasis on the plural form of “region”), but does not ever define a singular Raman spectral region other than “the differential Raman spectral region” recited on line 13. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes lines 13-14 of claim 11 is intended to convey a step of defining the area under the curve of the p-value plot associated with a Raman spectral region of the different Raman spectral regions which has a positive value and a corrected p-value < 0.05 of Step 3 as the ERF. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 15, line 2 recites the limitation “the Raman spectra”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 15 nor claim 10, in which claim 15 depends on, previously recite Raman spectra of any kind. Claim 11 recites the use of Raman spectra, however, claim 15 does not depend on claim 11. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and is therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes claim 15 is supposed to depend on claim 11, instead of claim 10. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 17, line 2 recites the limitation “the Raman spectra”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 17 nor claim 10, in which claim 17 depends on, previously recite Raman spectra of any kind. Claim 11 recites the use of Raman spectra, however, claim 17 does not depend on claim 11.
Further regarding claim 17, line 2 recites the limitation “the tissue of the plant leaf”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 10, in which claim 17 depends on, recites that a plant in a plant population is the target of the determination of the Elicitor Response Factor (ERF), claim 10 does not recite that the target of the determination of the ERF is the leaf tissue of the plant. Claim 13 recites that the determination of the ERF is made of a sample of leaf tissue of a plant in a plant population, however, claim 17 does not depend on claim 13.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 17 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes claim 17 is supposed to depend on claim 13, instead of claim 10. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for the limitations “determining an Elicitor Response Factor (ERF) for a plant in a plant population”, “correlating the ERF with a quantitative measure of the degree of pattern-triggered immunity (PTI)”, and “wherein a high ERF value is associated with a high degree of PTI in the plant in the plant population and is indicative of an early stage infection” (emphasis added via underlined words) in claim 10.
While the specification is enabling for determining an Elicitor Response Factor (ERF) for a plant in a plant population; wherein the ERF is determined by the steps of (1) obtaining the mean of 60 Raman spectra from each individual biological sample in the Raman shift spectral range of 400 cm-1 – 1,700 cm-1 after pre-processing the Raman spectra, (2) deriving the difference of the mean spectra obtained in Step 1 between elicitor-treated and mock control-treated samples to highlight different Raman spectral regions with positive values, (3) obtaining a p-value plot using a t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differential Raman spectra obtained in Step 2, wherein the differential Raman spectral regions where p-value < 0.05 are noted and wherein the p-value plot is corrected by including an estimation of the positive false discovery rate (pFDR) and applying the multiple-hypothesis testing principle, (4) defining the area under the curve of the differential Raman spectral region which has a positive value and also represents the corrected p-value <0.05 of Step 3 is the ERF, wherein the ERF measures a level of pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) response and wherein a higher ERF value indicates a higher level of the elicitor-induced immune response, and (5) tabulating all the positive spectral regions contributing towards the ERF (see paragraphs 0019-0024, 0059-0064, 0093-0098); and correlating the ERF with a quantitative measure of the level of pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) (emphasis added via underlined words), the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with claims 10 and 18-20.
The claims have been analyzed using the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), a statement regarding each factor is as follows:
Regarding the breadth of the claims, claims 10 and 18-20 merely require that any kind of elicitor response factor be determined for a plant in a plant population. The specification only describes the determination of an elicitor response factor through the steps recited in paragraphs 0059-0064. No other methods of determining an elicitor response factor are disclosed. Thus, the specification is far narrower in scope than claims 10 and 18-20.
Regarding the nature of the invention, the specification relates to the determination of an elicitor response factor through, generally, finding the mean of 60 Raman spectra, finding the difference of the mean spectra between an elicitor-treated and control samples to highlight different Raman spectral regions with positive values, evaluating the statistical significance of the differential Raman spectra, defining the area under the curve of a differential Raman spectral region that has a positive value and a p-value < 0.05 as the elicitor response factor, and tabulating all positive spectral regions contributing towards the ERF. However, claims 10 and 18-20 recite that any elicitor response factor can be determined and used to correlate a degree of PTI in a plant. It is unknown if the elicitor response factor can be determined using other means (e.g. averaging absorbance or fluorescent spectra), and if a differently-determined elicitor response factor can be accurately correlated to a degree of PTI in a plant.
Regarding the state of the prior art, the prior art does not support that any generic elicitor response factor could be correlated to a degree of PTI in a plant such that a high ERF value is associated with a high degree of PTI in the plant and is indicative of an early stage infection. Therefore, a specifically derived elicitor response factor would be required to be accurately correlated to a degree of PRI in a plant.
Regarding the level of one having ordinary skill in the art, a skilled artisan would seek to determine an elicitor response factor for a plant in a plant population that can be accurately correlated to a degree of PTI in the plant. It is beyond the level skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to correlate a degree of PTI in a plant to any kind of derived elicitor response factor.
Regarding the level of predictability in the art, determining and/or measuring the response an elicitor-treated plant produces and correlating the response to a degree of PTI in a plant is within the level of predictability in the art. However, quantifying the response of an elicitor-treated plant such that it can be correlated to a degree of PTI can be achieved through various methods that would yield different quantities based on the measurement method. For example, a skilled artisan could derive an elicitor response factor in which a small value of the ERF correlates to a high degree of PTI, or vice versa. It is thus unpredictable how differently determined elicitor response factors can be used to correlate to a degree of PTI in a plant.
Regarding the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the inventor provides examples of determining an elicitor response factor that can be correlated to a degree of PTI in a plant sample in paragraphs 0093-0102. However, the specification does not mention any other way to determine the elicitor response factor than the way described in paragraphs 0059-0064 and 0093-0098, nor does the specification describe the usage of any other differently determined elicitor response factor to correlate to a degree of PTI in a plant.
Regarding the existence of working examples, paragraphs 0093-0107 provides several examples of the determination of the elicitor response factor of a plant in the manner described in paragraphs 0059-0064 and 0093-0098, and the subsequent correlation to a degree of PTI in a plant. However, there are no other examples using a differently determined elicitor response factor to correlate to a degree of PTI in a plant are provided.
Regarding the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, as detailed above, the specification only mentions the determination of an elicitor response factor through the specific steps laid out in paragraphs 0059-0064. Further, the specification only discusses correlations between the specifically derived elicitor response factor of the instant application and a degree of PTI in a plant. Thus, if a skilled artisan were to determine a different type of elicitor response factor through different measurement and/or analytical means, a skilled artisan would have to undergo undue experimentation to ensure that the differently determined elicitor response factor accurately correlates to the degree of PTI in a plant (i.e. to satisfy the requirement of claim 10 “wherein a high ERF value is associated with a high degree of PTI in the plant in the plant population and is indicative of an early stage infection”).
Thus, the specification does not enable the limitations of claim 10 identified above. Claims 18-20 depend on claim 10 and further do not enable the above identified limitations. Therefore, claims 10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more.
The claims will be addressed according to the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (see MPEP § 2106).
Interpretation of the claims:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1:
Claim 10 is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (process).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 10 recites the following limitations that are all considered to be abstract ideas belonging to the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas:
The limitation “determining an Elicitor Response Factor (ERF) for a plant in a plant population” on line 3.
The limitation “correlating the ERF with a quantitative measure of the degree of pattern-triggered immunity (PTI)” on lines 5-6.
Claim 10 recites the following limitation that is considered to be a law of nature and/or natural phenomena:
The limitation “wherein a high ERF value is associated with a high degree of PTI in the plant in the plant population and is indicative of an early stage infection” on lines 7-8.
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the above judicial exceptions into a practical application. The preamble of claim 10 recites that the claimed method is “a method of detection and quantitation of an innate immunity response in a plant”. However, this recitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the method of claim 10. At best, this limitation generally links the claimed method to the field of analyzing innate immunity responses in plants, which does not incorporate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the above judicial exceptions.
Analysis of Dependent Claims:
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the following limitations that are all considered to be abstract ideas belonging to the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas:
The limitation “obtaining the mean of 60 Raman spectra from each individual biological sample in the Raman shift spectral range of 400 cm-1 – 1,700 cm-1 after pre-processing the Raman spectra” on lines 2-4.
The limitation “deriving the difference of the mean spectra obtained in Step 1 between elicitor-treated and mock control-treated samples to highlight different Raman spectral regions with positive values” on lines 5-7.
The limitation “obtaining a p-value plot using a t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differential Raman spectra obtained in Step 2, wherein the differential Raman spectral regions where p-value < 0.05 are noted and wherein the p-value plot is corrected by including an estimation of the positive false discovery rate (pFDR) and applying the multiple-hypothesis testing principle” on lines 8-12.
The limitation “defining the area under the curve of the differential Raman spectral region which has a positive value and also represents the corrected p-value < 0.05 of Step 3 as the ERF” on lines 13-14.
Claim 11 recites the following limitation that is considered to a law of nature and/or natural phenomena:
The limitation “wherein the ERF measures the level of PTI response and wherein a higher ERF value indicates a higher level of the elicitor-induced immune response” on lines 15-16.
Claim 11 further includes the additional element “tabulating all the positive spectral regions contributing towards the ERF” on line 17. This additional element is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity as the additional element merely amounts to data gathering, manipulation, and output. The insignificant extra-solution activity recited on line 17 of claim 11 does not incorporate the judicial exceptions of claims 10-11 into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Additionally, the additional element recited on line 17 of claim 11 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions of claims 10-11. In addition to the additional element recited on line 17 of claim 11 being insignificant extra-solution activity, tabulating a specific group of spectra is an activity considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exceptions do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the pre-processing comprises cosmic ray removal, Savitsky-Golay smoothing, and polynomial background subtraction”. This limitation is directed to a series of mathematical calculations which belong to the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, claim 12 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions of claims 10-12 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claims 13 and 14:
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitations “wherein the biological sample is a sample of leaf tissue of a plant in a plant population” and “wherein the tissue of the plant leaf is a leaf blade”, respectively. These limitations merely limit the type of biological samples from which the Raman spectra used in “Step 1” of claim 11 are obtained from. Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 13 and 14 merely link the judicial exceptions recited in claims 10-11 to a particular field of use and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exceptions of claims 10-11 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claims 15 and 16:
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitations “wherein the Raman spectra is obtained using near-infrared excitation wavelength” and “wherein the near-infrared excitation wavelength is 830 nm”, respectively. There limitations merely recite the selection of a particular wavelength of light used to generate Raman spectroscopic data for collection. Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 15 and 16 merely amount to necessary data gathering, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exceptions of claims 10-11 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Additionally, it is well understood, routine, and conventional to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use near-infrared excitation, namely at a wavelength of 830 nm, to generate Raman spectra.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “obtaining the Raman spectra is non-invasive and non-destructive to the tissue of the plant leaf”. This limitation recites the characteristics of a measurement used to obtain Raman spectra, which merely amounts to necessary data gathering, which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exceptions of claims 10-11 and 13 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Additionally, Raman spectroscopy is well known in the art as a non-invasive and non-destructive measurement technique for various samples.
Claims 18 and 19:
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitations “wherein the real time detection and quantitation of an innate immunity response in a plant is applied to urban farming” and “wherein the real time detection and quantitation of an innate immunity response is applied to open farming”, respectively. These limitations merely represent additional elements that generally link the judicial exceptions recited in claim 10 to particular field of use and/or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements of claims 18 and 19 do not integrate the judicial exceptions of claim 10 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
The courts have decided that natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract intellectual concepts, such as mental processes and mathematical concepts, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank, 573 US, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)).
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claims 10-19 are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
Claim 11 satisfies the enablement requirement as it discloses the specific steps performed to generate the claimed elicitor response factor of claim 10. The scope of claim 11 is therefore consistent with the scope of the specification. Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and therefore also satisfy the enablement requirement. Claims 15-17 have been interpreted by the examiner, in view of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections outlined above, to depend on claim 11 in some capacity. Thus, claims 15-17 also satisfy the enablement requirement in view of their assumed dependence outlined above.
Claim 20 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claim 20 comprises additional elements that incorporates the abstract ideas and laws of nature into a practical application.
A statement regarding the prior art for claims 10-20 is not made at this time in view of the various rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 101 outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eikenberry et al. (US Patent No. 11,493,385), Niehaus (US Patent No. 12,087,031), Gellerman et al. (US Patent No. 7,215,420), Beom et al. (KR 2014/0038213 A), Nie et al. (CN 111751347 A), and Mandrile et al. ("Nondestructive Raman spectroscopy as a tool for early detection and discrimination of the infection of tomato plants by two economically important viruses." Analytical chemistry 91.14 (2019): 9025-9031.) all relate to the spectroscopic analysis of plants to detect infections and/or determine health of the plant.
Yarden et al. (US Patent No. 10,458,908) and Potter et al. ("Abiotic stressors impact outer membrane vesicle composition in a beneficial rhizobacterium: Raman spectroscopy characterization." Scientific reports 10.1 (2020): 21289.) relate to analyzing plant characteristics using Raman spectroscopy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights