Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 8-11-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
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 § 103
2. 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0271535 to Yamashita in view of CN Patent No. 103240061 to Jiang et al. or alternatively in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0111959 to Qin et al.
Referring to claims 1, 10 and 18, Yamashita discloses a population of pollen grains containing live and dead pollen grains, wherein the live pollen grains are separate from both dead pollen grains and dead pollen contents and the interacting of dead pollen contents with live pollen grains is minimized – see separation of viable pollen from non-viable pollen detailed in paragraphs [0120] thru [0122]. Yamashita further discloses storing the live and dead pollen grains with at least one substance – see at least the in vitro culture in paragraph [0120] which would have a culture medium as the substance, wherein the at least one substance prevents dead pollen contents from interacting with live pollen grains – see paragraph [0120] where the substance would provide for spacing of the pollen since it is mixed with the grains and therefore placed between the grains so that they cannot move with respect to and/or interact with each other. Specific to claims 10 and 18, Yamashita further discloses mixing the pollen and the substance – see at least the in vitro culture in paragraph [0120]. Specific to claim 18, Yamashita further discloses the population has been stored for a minimum of 24 hours prior to use in pollinating plants – see paragraphs [0122] and [0126]. Specific to claims 1, 10 and 18, Yamashita further discloses live pollen is separated from content leaked from dead or dying pollen cells – see separation of viable pollen from non-viable pollen detailed in paragraphs [0120] thru [0122] where the composition is at least capable of separating the live pollen from leaked cells from dead/dying pollen, and the integrity and viability of the live pollen grains is preserved – see paragraphs [0120]-[0126]. Yamashita does not disclose the substance is a solid particulate substance. Qin et al. does disclose the substance is solid particulate substance – see for example paragraphs [0073]-[0075] and [0109]-[0111], [0117], [0124]-[0127] and [0135], Jiang et al. does disclose the substance is a solid particulate substance – see the English abstract and claims of Jiang et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the composition of Yamashita and add the solid particulate substance as detailed by Qin et al. and by Jiang et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the substance provides for maintaining the viability of the pollen as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Yamashita as modified by Qin et al. and Yamashita as modified by Jiang et al. further discloses the at least one substance minimizes surface-to-surface contact between the pollen grains – see paragraph [0120] of Yamashita where the substance would provide for spacing of the pollen since it is mixed with the grains and therefore placed between the grains so to minimize contact with each other.
Referring to claims 6 and 14, Yamashita as modified by Qin et al. and Yamashita as modified by Jiang et al. further discloses the substance regulates pollen moisture content and flowability – see paragraph [0120] of Yamashita where the substance being in contact with the pollen grains would have an effect on moisture content and flowability. Yamashita does not disclose the substance is a solid particulate substance. Qin et al. does disclose the substance is solid particulate substance – see for example paragraphs [0073]-[0075] and [0109]-[0111], [0117], [0124]-[0127] and [0135], Jiang et al. does disclose the substance is a solid particulate substance – see the English abstract and claims of Jiang et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the composition of Yamashita and add the solid particulate substance as detailed by Qin et al. and by Jiang et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the substance provides for maintaining the viability of the pollen as desired.
Referring to claims 7 and 15, Yamashita as modified by Qin et al. and Yamashita as modified by Jiang et al. does not disclose the ratio of pollen grains to the solid particulate substance is at least 3:1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the composition of Yamashita as modified by Qin et al. and Yamashita as modified by Jiang et al. and use any suitable ratio of pollen to substance including the claimed 3:1 ratio, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the substance provides for maintaining the viability of the pollen as desired. Yamashita does not disclose the substance is a solid particulate substance. Qin et al. does disclose the substance is solid particulate substance – see for example paragraphs [0073]-[0075] and [0109]-[0111], [0117], [0124]-[0127] and [0135], Jiang et al. does disclose the substance is a solid particulate substance – see the English abstract and claims of Jiang et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the composition of Yamashita and add the solid particulate substance as detailed by Qin et al. and by Jiang et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the substance provides for maintaining the viability of the pollen as desired.
Referring to claims 8 and 16, Yamashita as modified by Qin et al. and Yamashita as modified by Jiang et al. further discloses the population has been stored for a minimum of 24 hours prior to use in pollinating plants – see paragraphs [0122] and [0126] of Yamashita.
Referring to claims 9 and 17, Yamashita as modified by Qin et al. and Yamashita as modified by Jiang et al. further discloses the population has been stored at a temperature below freezing – see paragraph [0126] of Yamashita.
Response to Arguments
3. This office action is a final rejection with new grounds of rejection in that applicant’s claim amendments dated 8-11-25 changes the scope of the claimed invention in that the original claims detail the substance is solid particles which can be a substance formed from solid particles which could be a single solid object formed of solid particles and the claim amendments dated 8-11-25 claims the substance is a solid particulate substance which is more narrow in that the substance must contain particles and could not be a single sold object formed from solid particles.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1-18, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 8-11-25 obviates the prior art rejections detailed in the last office action dated 6-3-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 8-11-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action. Further, the Yamashita reference US 2014/0271535 does disclose providing viable pollen and maintaining viable pollen as seen with respect to the term viable in paragraph [0120] and applicant’s claims do not specifically detail that the pollen claimed is used for pollinating plants.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patent is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to pollen compositions in general:
KR Pat. No. 148353 – shows pollen composition
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643