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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 and those depending therefrom include and/or recite the term “derivative” in reference to the (S)-abscisic acid component. The metes and bounds of the term “derivative” are subjective and not defined in the specification as filed. The term is therefore unclear in the instant context because what chemical compounds are included and/or excluded may vary according to the opinion of one artisan to another. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN103483080A (Lu et al., “Lu”).
The claims are drawn to a method of reducing fruit drop in a citrus plant comprising applying from about 0.1 to less than 150 ppm of (S)-abscisic acid, a salt thereof or a derivative thereof to the citrus plant.
Lu teaches a method of reducing fruit drop in a citrus plant such as oranges by applying (S)-abscisic acid active agent (see [0043] and [0034]). Lu’s formulations comprise 0.01 to 10% of S-abscisic acid which is diluted by 1000-2000 times for spray application, producing a range of 1 to 100 ppm, a range overlapping the range instantly claimed (limitations of claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 16) (see [0034] and [0042]). See also concentrations in embodiment/examples. Oranges and tangerines, noted to be examples of citrus crops, are named among the plants to be treated (see page 4/9 of translation, second paragraph)(lmitations of claims 1, 6, and 7). Lu’s examples treat the fruit tree itself (see Test example 3 for instance).(limitation of claims 8 and 13).
Because Lu’s examples do not necessarily include the S-abscisic acid component in an amount and in a particular citrus application method as claim, this rejection is made using obviousness rationale. It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Lu’s teachings into a single embodiment application method wherein S-abscisic acid is diluted and applied to cirrus such as orange crops to the plants to be treated as taught by Lu. One would have been motivated to do so to reduce fruit drop in a citrus plant as generally taught by Lu’s disclosure as a whole for what it reasonably would have suggested to the ordinary artisan.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN103483080A (Lu et al., “Lu”) as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 11-13, and 16 above, and further in view of US 6, 180, 569B1 (“Lovatt”).
The teachings of Lu have been delineated above. Lu does not specify the application to be after petal fall and/or four weeks after petal fall as recited in claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, and 15.
Lovatt cures this deficiency. Lovatt teaches methods of applying known active compounds to plants for improving crop yield to reduce fruit fall specifically (see column 6, lines 15-17) by controlling abscission and synchronizing fruit set in plants. Like Lu, Lovatt’s methods are applicable to citrus plants (e.g., orange, lemon, grapefruit, tangerine, lime, and citron) (see column 8, lines 47-42). Lovatt specifies that this treatment may be timed to apply the functional composition at least four weeks after petal fall (see column 10, lines 43-44).
Both Lu and Lovatt pertain to methods of improving crop yields by stepwise application of known activ3e agent such as plant hormones (see abstracts, in particular). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to use Lu’s methods of applying the known active agent which is (S)-abscisic acid-containing formulations to crops including citrus crops in a method further specified by Lovatt wherein said method includes application timed four weeks or more after petal fall. One would have been motivated to do so to control abscission and synchronize fruit set as suggested by Lovatt.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights