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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: Line 2, recites the limitation “the irradiation targe part.” Examiner recommends correction to “the irradiation target part.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ishida (WO 2021049640 A1) in view of Krijn et al. (US 20150223402 A1), hereinafter Krijn.
Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses a disease control method comprising:
setting a near-infrared light irradiation target part to a vicinity of a shoot apex part of a plant including the shoot apex part; and irradiating the plant with the near-infrared light within an irradiation range that is defined based on the irradiation target part (¶ 0010, lines 1 and 2, “A method for controlling plant diseases, comprising irradiating a plant under cultivation with near-infrared light having a wavelength set within a wavelength range of 800 to 1000 nm;” Fig. 11 shows shoot apex part of plant T2 being targeted),
such that the irradiation range corresponds to the vicinity of the shoot apex part including the shoot apex part (Fig. 11 shows the irradiation area is a vicinity of the shoot apex part including the shoot apex part and surrounding portions),
Although Ishida discloses wherein the vicinity of the shoot apex part includes an area based on a tip of a stem (¶ 0010; Fig. 11), Ishida fails to specifically disclose wherein the vicinity of the shoot apex part is an area having a length that is 1/3 or less of a total length from the tip to a position of a branch at another end of the stem in a stem growth direction, or wherein the vicinity of the shoot apex part is, an area based on a flower truss closest to the shoot apex part, a region located on the shoot apex part side relative to the flower truss, or a region including the flower truss and located on the shoot apex part side.
Krijn is in the field of plant irradiation and teaches wherein the vicinity of the shoot apex part is an area having a length that is 1/3 or less of a total length from the tip to a position of a branch at another end of the stem in a stem growth direction, or wherein the vicinity of the shoot apex part is, an area based on a flower truss closest to the shoot apex part, a region located on the shoot apex part side relative to the flower truss, or a region including the flower truss and located on the shoot apex part side (Fig. 1c shows subset 10b oriented to target the top area of the crop 1, having a length that is less than 1/3 of the total length from the tip; ¶ 0106, lines 1-10, “FIG. 1c very schematically depicts an embodiment wherein the lighting device 500 illuminates with a first subset 10a of light source[s] 509 substantially only a target part 5 of the first plant part 2 of the crop 1. Another subset, indicated with reference 10b, also comprising one or more light source[s] 509 substantially illuminates [other] [above-ground] plant parts, which are indicated with reference 3. Reference 13 indicates the surface of a medium 131, such as [potting] soil, in which the crop 1 roots. Whereas FIG. 1c schematically depicts a crop 1 with e.g. a fruit as edible first plant part 2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant irradiation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ishida such that the area having a length that is 1/3 or less of a total length from the tip to a position of a branch at another end of the stem in a stem growth direction, or wherein the vicinity of the shoot apex part is, an area based on a flower truss closest to the shoot apex part, a region located on the shoot apex part side relative to the flower truss, or a region including the flower truss and located on the shoot apex part side, as taught by the targeted light irradiation of Krijn. The targeting would ensure the target part gets more light of a specific kind than it would receive otherwise, which would improve overall light treatment and growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein conditions under which the shoot apex part or the vicinity of the shoot apex part is irradiated satisfy Formula 1, Formula 2, and Formula 3,
Formula 1: 644893X-1.873 ≧ Y ≧ 5901.9X-1.856
Formula 2: X ≧ 1
Formula 3: Y ≧ 0.01 where in each of the formulae, X is irradiance [W/m2], and Y is irradiation time [sec] (¶ 0010, “A method for controlling plant diseases, comprising irradiating a plant under cultivation with near-infrared light having a wavelength set within a wavelength range of 800 to 1000 nm, where X is the irradiance [W/m２] and Y is the irradiation time [seconds], so as to satisfy all of the following formulas 1, 2, and 3: Formula 1: 644893X-1.873 ≧ Y ≧ 5901.9X-1.856 Formula 2: X≧1 Formula 3: Y≧0”).
Regarding claim 5, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein a wavelength of the near-infrared light is in a range from 800 to 1000 nm (¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 6, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein a frequency of irradiation of the shoot apex part or the vicinity of the shoot apex part is from once a day to once a month (¶ 0012, “A plant disease control method, characterized in that the plant disease control method described in [1] or [2] above is carried out once every 1 to 14 days”).
Regarding claim 7, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein a plant disease is a disease caused by a fungus (¶ 0013, “A method for controlling plant diseases as described in [1], [2] or [3] above, characterized in that the plant disease is a disease caused by a fungus”).
Regarding claim 8, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 7.
Ishida discloses wherein the fungus is at least one fungus selected from the group consisting of Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, flagellated fungi, Oomycota, and fungi imperfecti (¶ 0014, “The method for controlling plant diseases described in [4] above, characterized in that the fungus is any one of Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, Flagellate mycota, Oomycota, or Deuteromycota”).
Regarding claim 9, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein a plant disease is at least one disease selected from the group consisting of powdery mildew, gray mold, leaf mold, anthracnose, and downy mildew (¶ 0015, “The method for controlling plant diseases according to [1], [2] or [3] above, characterized in that the plant disease is any one of strawberry powdery mildew, tomato powdery mildew, tomato gray mold, tomato leaf mold, and cucumber downy mildew”).
Regarding claim 10, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein the plant is at least one plant selected from the group consisting of a strawberry plant, a tomato plant, a cherry tomato plant, a shishito pepper plant, a green bell pepper plant, a bell pepper plant, an eggplant plant, a cucumber plant, a pumpkin plant, a melon plant, a watermelon plant, an okra plant, a cabbage plant, a broccoli plant, a cauliflower plant, a napa cabbage plant, a komatsuna plant, a nabana plant, a leek plant, an onion plant, an asparagus plant, a grape plant, a citrus fruit plant, a peach plant, a pear plant, a persimmon plant, a cherry plant, a chrysanthemum plant, a rose plant, a carnation plant, and a lisianthus plant (¶ 0087, lines 1-3, “Furthermore, in general, when near-infrared light is irradiated onto plants such as tomatoes at an irradiance of less than 1 W/m NER55, the exposure time must be significantly extended in order to obtain a sufficient effect in controlling diseases such as gray mold of tomatoes”).
Regarding claim 11, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 2. Although Ishida discloses wherein the shoot apex part is the area based on a tip of a stem (¶ 0010; Fig. 11), the modified reference to specifically disclose the area having a length that is 1/3 or less of a total length from the tip to a position of a branch at another end of the stem in a stem growth direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Ishida in view of Krijn such that the area has a length that is 1/3 or less of a total length from the tip to a position of a branch at another end of the stem in a stem growth direction, in order to ensure the irradiation area is more concentrated on the stem tip. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 13, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1. Although Ishida discloses wherein the irradiation is performed using a handheld near-infrared light irradiation device producing a variable effective irradiation area (handheld device 2; Fig. 11), the modified reference to specifically disclose having an effective irradiation area in a range from 5 mm2 to 10,000 mm2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Ishida in view of Krijn such that the device has an effective irradiation area in a range from 5 mm2 to 10,000 mm2, in order to ensure the irradiation area is specifically tailored to certain applications. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein irradiation of the vicinity thereof is repeated at an interval in a range from 1 to 14 days during cultivation (¶ 0045, “The disease control effect obtained by carrying out the plant disease control method of the present invention lasts for about 14 days after one application. Therefore, by repeatedly carrying out the plant disease control method of the present invention once every 1 to 14 days, the disease control effect can be maintained without interruption”).
Regarding claim 17, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein the plant is a fruit-bearing plant selected from the group consisting of tomato, grape, and strawberry (¶ 0087, lines 1-3, “Furthermore, in general, when near-infrared light is irradiated onto plants such as tomatoes at an irradiance of less than 1 W/m NER55, the exposure time must be significantly extended in order to obtain a sufficient effect in controlling diseases such as gray mold of tomatoes”).
Regarding claim 18, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein a time of one continuous irradiation during which the near-infrared light is irradiated continuously is in a range from 0.1 second to 5 minutes (¶ 0043, lines 3-6, “Continuous irradiation means, for example, continuously irradiating near-infrared light for a predetermined period of time [for example, 5 minutes]. Intermittent irradiation means, for example, repeating 10 seconds of irradiation and 10 seconds of non-irradiation 30 times for a total irradiation time of 5 minutes;” a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03].).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ishida (WO 2021049640 A1) in view of Krijn (US 20150223402 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Keun (KR 20160058230 A).
Regarding claim 14, Ishida in view of Krijn discloses the method of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein irradiation of the vicinity of the shoot apex part increases expression of a disease-resistance-related gene in a leaf located away from the irradiated part.
Keun is in the field of disease control by way of plant irradiation and teaches wherein irradiation of the vicinity of the shoot apex part based on the irradiation target part increases expression of a disease-resistance-related gene in a leaf located away from the irradiated part (¶ 0008, “As part of the development of eco-friendly agricultural materials and technologies, research on phototechnology using artificial light such as red, blue, and yellow in the agricultural field is expanding. Monochromatic light, ultraviolet rays [including near-ultraviolet rays], and infrared rays are effective in promoting plant growth and controlling diseases, and expectations are rising as a pest control technology that can replace pesticides;” ¶ 0036, “In a method for increasing resistance to gray mold disease according to one embodiment of the present invention, the wavelength of the LED may be in the range of 400 to 700 nm, preferably in the range of 430 to 450 nm or 650 to 670 nm, and more preferably in the range of 440 nm or 660 nm, but is not limited thereto. Additionally, the part of the plant to which the LED is irradiated may be a leaf or a fruit, and preferably may be a leaf part of a grape plant, but is not limited thereto;” ¶ 0052, “Real-time PCR was performed using primers for the 16 genes presented in Table 1. Gene expression was confirmed by dividing into grapevine leaves and fruits, and the selected genes were classified into three groups. In the leaves, a group of genes involved in disease resistance, such as osmotin and pathogenesis-related proteins PR4a or PR6, a group of genes involved in reactive oxygen species and stress, such as glutathione s-transferase [GST] and lipoxygenase [LOX], and lastly, a group of genes involved in stilbene biosynthesis, such as phenylalanine ammonia lyase [PAL], chalcone isomerase [CHI], and resveratrol O-methyltransferase [ROMT], were classified and the experimental results were confirmed. In the case of fruits, expression of genes involved in stilbene biosynthesis was confirmed;” ¶ 0053, lines 5 and 6, “In Kyoho leaves, the expression of genes such as osmotin [OSM], pathogenicity-related proteins [PR4a, PR6], and catalase [CAT] increased after LED light irradiation;” ¶ 0055, lines 5-12, “Among the three gene groups, there was a tendency for strong expression in the disease resistance-related gene group, including pathogenicity-related proteins [PR4a, PR6]. In the fruit, it was confirmed that the expression of genes involved in stilbene biosynthesis increased after light irradiation, and phenylalanine ammonia lyase [PAL] and stilbene synthase [STSY] showed a tendency to be strongly expressed [Fig. 3]. As in the leaves, the expression level was highest at 440 nm [blue light] and 660 nm [red light], and both Campbell Early and Kyoho varieties showed a tendency to increase rapidly after 12 hours [Figs. 8 and 9]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant irradiation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ishida in view of Krijn such that irradiation of the vicinity of the shoot apex part increases expression of a disease-resistance-related gene in a leaf located away from the irradiated part, as taught by the irradiation method of Keun. The irradiation would increase the expression of disease resistance related genes in the plant, which would improve overall disease protection characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Ishida in view of Krijn and Keun discloses the method of claim 14, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the disease-resistance-related gene is at least one gene selected from the group consisting of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase [PAL] gene and pathogenesis-related protein [PR5] gene (Keun; (¶ 0008; ¶ 0036; ¶ 0052; ¶ 0055, lines 5-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 7 that “The rejection relies on Ishida for teaching irradiating a shoot apex part with near-infrared light (see Office Action dated April 9, 2026, page 3; see also paragraph [0010] and Fig. 11 of Ishida cited in the rejection). Figure 11 of Ishida illustrates irradiation extending over the plant from base to apex - that is, over the full length of the stem. This range is not limited to, and does not correspond to, either of the two regions recited in Claim 1: it is not confined to an area that is one-third or less of the total stem length as in option (1), nor is it defined or bounded by reference to the flower truss closest to the shoot apex part as in option (2). Ishida therefore neither identifies either objectively defined region as the irradiation target part nor teaches an irradiation range that is defined based on, and corresponds to, either region. The rejection previously reasoned that because the shoot apex forms part of the whole plant, whole-plant irradiation necessarily encompasses the claimed vicinity. That rationale was tied to the prior claim language, in which the vicinity was defined only as including the shoot apex part and an undefined ‘surrounding portion’ - language broad enough that a whole-plant irradiation range could arguably be said to include it. That rationale no longer applies to currently presented Claim 1. The claim no longer defines the vicinity by reference to an undefined ‘surrounding portion’ that a broader range might simply subsume. Instead, the claim recites the vicinity to be one of two objectively defined morphological regions, each with an explicit outer boundary, and further recites that the irradiation range itself be defined based on the selected target part and correspond to that region. An irradiation range that extends over the whole stem - as in Ishida's Figure 11 - exceeds the one-third stem-length boundary of option,” the Examiner maintains that Ishida discloses “setting a near-infrared light irradiation target part to a vicinity of a shoot apex part of a plant including the shoot apex part; and irradiating the plant with the near-infrared light,” as well as “irradiating the plant with the near-infrared light within an irradiation range that is defined based on the irradiation target part,” since Fig. 11 shows shoot apex part of plant T2 being targeted by the positioning of handheld device 2. It is acknowledged that Ishida fails to disclose the entirety of the two regions (options 1 and 2), as recited in Claim 1, however, Krijn is now relied upon to teach these limitations.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Kudo et al., US 20100281771 A1, discusses a disease control method and disease control device.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
