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 I claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadkade et al US 4,506,474.
Regarding claim 1, Kadkade discloses a method of cultivating a fruit vegetable plant, comprising: irradiating a fruit vegetable plant with artificial light under a light irradiation condition which achieves a fruit setting rate of 80% or more (Kadkade, column 4: lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 5, Kadkade further discloses a variation in light intensity between plant parts is generated in the fruit vegetable plant by the irradiation with the artificial light (Kadkade, column 4: lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 7, Kadkade further discloses after confirmation of first flower bud differentiation of the fruit vegetable plant until confirmation of last fruit setting, a variation in light intensity between plant parts is generated (Kadkade, column 4: lines 14-20, column 4: 52-column 5: lines 22).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadkade et al US 4,506,474.
Regarding claim 2, Kadkade discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose the fruit vegetable being a tomato. The examiner takes official notice that it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art to cultivate tomatoes by irradiating them with artificial light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of sucess to modify the method of Kadkade so that the fruit vegetable was a tomato depending on the type of crop the user wished to cultivate and improve upon.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadkade et al US 4,506,474 in view of Dobrinsky US 11,925,152.
Regarding claim 3, Kadkade discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose which direction the plant is irradiated from. Dobrinsky teaches irradiating a plant with artificial light from a direction of 0° ± 30° and a direction of 90° ± 30° with respect to a growth direction of a stem of the fruit vegetable plant (Dobrinsky, Figure 1, column 5: lines 47-55 and 28-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the method of Kadkade so that the plants were irradiated with artificial light from a direction of 0° ± 30° and a direction of 90° ± 30° with respect to a growth direction of a stem of the fruit vegetable plant as to provide (Dobrinsky, column 8: lines 54-63).
Regarding claim 4, Kadkade further discloses the irradiating comprises irradiating, after confirmation of first flower bud differentiation of the fruit vegetable plant until confirmation of last fruit setting the fruit vegetable plant with the artificial light (Kadkade, column 4: lines 15-25). Kadkade fails to disclose irradiating from a direction of 0° ± 30° and a direction of 90° ± 30° with respect to a growth direction of a stem of the fruit vegetable plant. Dobrinsky teaches irradiating a plant with artificial light from a direction of 0° ± 30° and a direction of 90° ± 30° with respect to a growth direction of a stem of the fruit vegetable plant (Dobrinsky, Figure 1, column 5: lines 47-55 and 28-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the method of Kadkade so that the plants were irradiated with artificial light from a direction of 0° ± 30° and a direction of 90° ± 30° with respect to a growth direction of a stem of the fruit vegetable plant as to provide (Dobrinsky, column 8: lines 54-63).
Regarding claim 6, Kadkade discloses the method of claim 5 but fails to disclose a light intensity It of the artificial light, with which a growth point of the fruit vegetable plant is irradiated, and a light intensity Ib of the artificial light, with which a central part of a lowest leaf of the fruit vegetable plant is irradiated, satisfy the following relationship: Ib/It ≤ 0.8. Dobrinsky teaches irradiating different parts of the fruit vegetable plant with different intensity (Dobrinsky, column 6: lines 10-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with reasonable expectation of success to modify the method of Kadkade so that the plant was irradiated at a light intensity It of the artificial light, and a light intensity Ib of the artificial light. Given a finite number of identified, predictable solutions it would have been obvious to try to irradiate different sections of the plant in the claimed ratio as to increase the nutritional content of the plant (Dobrinsky, column 6: lines 10-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 4,109,414.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights