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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: Line 2, recites the limitation “the shoot apex part is the the area.” Examiner recommends correction to “the shoot apex part is the area.”
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, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ishida (WO 2021049640 A1) in view of Martin (US 20180007845 A1).
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 (¶ 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 an irradiation range corresponds to the vicinity of the shoot apex part including the shoot apex part, wherein the vicinity of the shoot apex part is a region including the shoot apex part and a surrounding portion thereof (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 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.
Martin is in the field of plant irradiation and teaches 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 (¶ 0083, lines 11-15, “the trellis 210 is designed, configured, and/or positioned such that the stalks of the plant canopy will grow outside of the trellis, such as on or adjacent a radially outer side of the trellis, and the flowers or fruit of the plant will extend inward through the trellis toward the light source 112;” Figs. 10A-11B show the area).
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 flower truss configuration of Martin. The flower truss configuration would ensure that the plant has proper support without impeding irradiation to the plant, which would improve overall treatment characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Ishida in view of Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin discloses the method of claim 2. Although Ishida discloses wherein the 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 Martin 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”).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Ishida (WO 2021049640 A1) in view of Martin (US 20180007845 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Keun (KR 20160058230 A).
Regarding claim 14, Ishida in view of Martin 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 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 Martin 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 Martin 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 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 7 that “Ishida does not disclose selecting or setting an irradiation target part limited to the vicinity of shoot apex. Ishida uniformly irradiates the plant as a whole (paragraph [0010]; Fig. 11 of Ishida). There is no disclosure in Ishida of restricting the irradiation objective to be a vicinity region of an apex-side, nor any recognition that disease control could be achieved without irradiating the entire plant. Ishida's method depends on whole-plant exposure for uniform disease control and growth promotion,” and on page 8 that “Neither Ishida nor Martin recognizes that disease control can be achieved through localized apex-vicinity irradiation. Ishida irradiates the whole plant (paragraph [0010]; Fig. 11 of Ishida). Martin concerns plant support and light positioning (paragraph [0083] of Martin), not selective disease-control irradiation. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in any of the references or a combination thereof to abandon a whole-plant irradiation in favor of targeted apex-vicinity irradiation as the operative method as claim 1 recites,” the Examiner submits that the above arguments are incommensurate with the scope of the claims, as claim 1 requires “setting a near-infrared light irradiation target part to a vicinity of a shoot apex part of a plant including the shoot apex part.” The claims do not require the irradiation target to be limited to only the vicinity of the shoot apex with nothing else irradiated. Since the claimed shoot apex part of a plant is part of the whole plant, and since Ishida irradiates the whole plant, including setting the target to encompass the vicinity of the shoot apex part, Ishida discloses the claimed irradiation under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Redden, US 20150027044 A1, discusses a system and method for plant treatment.
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
Prosecution Insights