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
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: “desired level of growth” should read –desired stage of growth—to maintain consistency with the terminology from claim 1.
Claim 6 does not end with a period.
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 1-11 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.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 1(c) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what extent the one or more branches must be allowed to grow.
Claim 4 recites “wherein exposing is selected from the group comprising applying the auxin solution to the branch cutting by brushing on, dripping on, pouring on, or spraying on and placing the branch cutting in a container with the auxin solution.” This limitation is unclear. Per MPEP 2173.05(h) If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group “comprising” or “consisting essentially of” the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The term “high” in claim7 and 11 (in reference to “high relative humidity”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what humidity level is being required, at minimum.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the apical meristem cutting" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests amending claim 1, line 7 from “removing the apical meristem from the mother plant” to –removing the apical meristem, as an apical meristem cutting, from the mother plant—to provide antecedent basis.
Claim 6 requires that the auxin solution includes “pH balanced water solution.” From the specification, it is clear the applicant does not use ‘pH balanced’ to refer to a neutral pH (see ¶0090 – 5.5-5.9 pH). The other commonly known understanding of the term is that the solution has a pH level suitable for its specific application (think pH balanced skincare – balanced to the pH of skin). This being said, this limitation appears to reference a variable that is not sufficiently defined (pH of the application that is being matched/tailored to) and therefore the examiner cannot readily ascertain the scope of the claim term. If the applicant is trying to claim a step of forming the mixture, where the pH of the water is balanced (by adding acids or bases), or if the applicant is attempting to claim that the water have a specific pH range, they must do so explicitly, for now, as best understood, this limitation will be treated as broad, requiring that the water have a pH suitable to the application (which would be inherent to the water used, given it was chosen for the application).
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppgaard (WO 2021046508 A1) in view of Ovadya (US 20140259905 A1), hereinafter referred to as Uppgaard and Ovadya, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Uppgaard discloses a method to produce seeds from a single mother plant having an apical meristem (¶0085: Uppgard discusses creating clones from mother plant cuttings; ¶0088 discusses seed production), wherein the single mother plant is in one or both of a vegetative state and reproductive state, the vegetative state having vegetative stages and the reproductive state having reproductive stages (plants are naturally either in vegetative or reproductive stage, with substages to the stages) the method comprising:
growing the mother plant under conditions designed to substantially maintain the mother plant in a vegetative state and substantially delay reaching reproductive stage (¶0085: mother plants grown with 16h light per day to encourage stem elongation – conditions capable of maintaining in vegetative state);
removing the apical meristem from the mother plant once the mother plant has reached a desired stage of growth (¶0085: after 25+ days when plants have 1-3 branches and several nodes below the apical meristem, the apical meristem is removed; Fig 22 – step 2);
removing one or more branches from the mother plant as one or more branch cuttings wherein the one or more branches were sufficiently developed on the mother plant following the removal of the apical meristem (see Fig 22 steps 3/4: axillary shoots/branches formed post-apical removal, then removed as cuttings in step 4; ¶0085);
maintaining each of the one or more branch cuttings in growth media under acclimation conditions until each of the branch cuttings resume growing vegetatively as clone plants (¶0085 – cuttings placed in aeroponics unit, where root development occurs – if root development occurs, the conditions providing such growth must allow for acclimation/vegetative formation, given vegetative growth occurs; ¶0049 – cut plant secured in aeroponics unit via aeroponic growth media);
inducing the clone plants to flower (¶0087 – cuttings rooted in aeroponic growth enclosure, transferred to soil for maturation, and floral induction; ¶0087: floral induction may be manipulated by adjusting the length of day with supplemental lighting);
Uppgaard fails to specifically disclose that the method includes the following steps:
once the clone plants have been induced to flower, returning the clone plants to vegetative growth conditions; and
maintaining the clone plants under vegetative growth conditions until they have produced a desired number of seeds.
Ovadya discloses a method for modifying flowering time and seed yield in field crops wherein plants are induced to flower with a lighting-based floral induction treatment, and afterwards are returned to vegetative growing conditions and maintained under vegetative grow conditions until they have produced a desired number of seeds (¶0007; ¶0067-0068)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the method steps of returning clone plants to vegetative growth conditions until desired seeding has occurred, after the floral induction in Uppgaard, as suggested by Ovadya, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Ovadya, doing so greatly increases seed yield (Abstract, ¶0068).
Regarding claim 2:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the mother plant is a short-day plant (¶0009: soybean plant), the conditions to substantially maintain the mother plant in a vegetative state and substantially delay reaching reproductive stage comprising applying long-day conditions to the mother plant (¶0085: 16h of day length).
Regarding claim 3:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the desired level of growth is determined by assessing at least one of the vegetative and reproductive stages of the mother plant to determine whether the mother plant has progressed enough to remove the apical meristem (¶0085: “at day 25 soybean plants have 1-3 branches, and under low light, the branches have sufficient length of their internodes for cuttings to be secured in the aeroponic system (at least about 7.5 cm long), and to have several nodes below the apical meristem” – characteristics that are noted showing plant has sufficiently grown prior to cutting meristem determine the plant; ¶0044).
Regarding claim 7:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein maintaining the branch cuttings in growth media under acclimation conditions until the branch cutting resumes growing vegetatively further comprises exposing the branch cuttings to high relative humidity (¶0094: “aeroponics provides high humidity to induce root growth”) and vegetative growing conditions (given vegetative growth occurs – per ¶0085, fast root development – the conditions may be considered ‘vegetative growing conditions’).
Regarding claim 9:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses maintaining the apical meristem cutting in a growth media (¶0044: cut for securing in an aeroponic growth medium) under acclimation conditions until the apical meristem cutting begins growing vegetatively (¶0085 – meristem inserted into foam cup in aeroponic unit, for rooting; claims 23-24).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppgaard and Ovadya, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chu (CN 113557902 A), hereinafter referred to as Chu, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 4:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Uppgaard as modified fails to specifically disclose the step of exposing each of the one or more branch cuttings to an auxin solution before maintaining the branch cuttings in the growth media.
Chu discloses a cutting propagation method including the step of exposing the cuttings to an auxin solution before planting the cutting in a grow media (Example 1, steps 2-3: Indolebutyric acid, commonly known as IBA, is an auxin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have dipped the cuttings of Uppgaard in an auxin solution prior to insertion into the grow media, as suggested by Chu, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Chu, dipping cuttings in the auxin solution improves cottage rooting rate and ability, thereby improving cottage survival rate (under ‘contents of invention’).
Regarding claim 5:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 4 above and Chu further discloses wherein exposing is selected from the group comprising applying the auxin solution to the branch cutting by brushing on, dripping on, pouring on, or spraying on and placing the branch cutting in a container with the auxin solution (example 1, step 2).
Regarding claim 6:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and Chu further discloses wherein the auxin solution includes auxin, nutrients, and pH balanced water solution (example 1, step 2).
Claims 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppgaard and Ovadya, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Leo (US 20180343900), hereinafter referred to as Leo, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Uppgaard as modified fails to specifically disclose the step of exposing the growth media to an auxin solution prior to receiving the branch cuttings therein.
Leo discloses a plant cutting propagation method that includes exposing the growth media, into which plants are to be inserted, to an auxin solution prior to receiving the cuttings therein (¶0097-0100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have exposed the growth media of Uppgaard to an auxin solution prior to receiving the cuttings therein, as suggested by Leo, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further increase the speed of cutting rooting and growth in the medium.
Regarding claim 10:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 above.
Uppgaard as modified fails to specifically disclose the step of exposing the apical meristem cutting to an auxin solution.
Leo discloses a plant cutting propagation method that includes exposing the cuttings to an auxin solution (¶0097-0100; rooting solution contains hormones per ¶0094, which may include auxins per ¶0108).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have exposed the cuttings of Uppgaard to an auxin solution, as suggested by Leo, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further increase the speed of cutting rooting and growth in the medium.
Regarding claim 11:
Uppgaard as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses maintaining the apical meristem cutting in growth media under acclimation conditions until the apical meristem cutting resumes growing vegetatively further comprises exposing the apical meristem cutting to high relative humidity and vegetative growing conditions (apical meristem rooted in aeroponic unit, per ¶0085 and claims 23-24; ¶0094: “aeroponics provides high humidity to induce root growth”; given vegetative growth is meant to occur – rooting – the conditions may be considered ‘vegetative growing conditions’).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pieters (WO 2021240354 A1) and Ogawa (WO 2011071114) exhibit similarities to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642