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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18 second to last line, the claim recites “one or the first and second agronomical traits” is grammatically incorrect, applicants are advised to correct it as “one of the first and second agronomical traits” as recited in claim 19.
In claim 11, claim recite “during the producing of the tomato plants” which is grammatically incorrect, applicants are advised to correct as “during the production of the tomato plants”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 18 lines 5 and 9, the claim recite the phrase “third plants” renders claim indefinite since it is not clear what does the third plants means, does it mean “third generation of a first population” or any random third plant in the population. Since the method does not include any step of selfing or crossing it is not clear whether there was third generation of plants to select from? If it is any randomly labeled “third plant” than it is not clear why it is recited with plural phrase as “third plants” as if there were multiple third plants and what is the significance of step of selecting third plants?
The claim also lack method step to produce third plant. what happens to the population to make third plant? was it selfed or intercrossed or something else? Which is not clear.
The claim in lines 6 and 10 recites the phrase “first agronomical trait” and “second agronomical trait” renders claim indefinite since it is not clear what does first and second agronomic trait means? does it mean agronomical trait from first and second population or any of the first agronomical traits from any other populations?
Therefore the metes and bound of claim cannot be determined.
Applicants are advised to use specific filial generations for each of the breeding steps (i.e. F1, F2,… or So, S1, S2…) or clearly recite the specific generation and how they were produced in the breeding scheme.
Regarding claim 18 second to last line, the claim recite “one or the first and second agronomical traits comprises seeds that produce at least four generations and harvests of tomatoes within one calendar year” renders claim indefinite since it is not clear how does a agronomical traits which are measurable property of a plant would comprise a “seeds” which is physically existing part of the plant.
The claim 18 is interpreted as if “third plants” would mean third generation of plants and are analyzed in this office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Reynolds et al. (Publication: 09/07/2023, accessed at Website: reynoldsresourcedevelopment.com, accessed on 06/01/2026).
Claims are drawn to a method of producing tomatoes by growing them in vertical growth column that produce at least four generations and harvest in one calendar year. Claims are further drawn to the environmental control of the growth system.
Regarding claims 1, Raynold’s et al. discloses a method of combining the use of solar greenhouse with hydroponic and vertical growing systems wherein their system provides a unique and sustainable option for tomato production in the local market (page 10, second to last paragraph).
Raynold’s et al. discloses plants are initially taken from the starter pots (i.e. seedlings) and placed in the hydroponic system and with proper feeding, environment, and pruning harvest will begin in approximately 75 days which allows a harvest per quarter or four harvest per year (page 16, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 10, Raynold’s et al. does not disclose their system would have fencing and trellising (i.e. are free of such structures) and discloses their system provides harvest approximately in 75 days.
Regarding claim 11-12, Raynold’s et al. discloses changing growing condition for example lights (page 17, Table).
Therefore Reynold’s et al. anticipates the claim.
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.
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.
Obvious over Whitcher et al. and further in view of Balashova et al., Certhon et al. and Samuolinene et al.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitcher et al. (US Patent No.: US 10,306,847 B2, Date of Patent: Jun.4,2019), and further in view of Balashova et al. (Published: 2019, Journal: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 395 012079 pages 1-9 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/395/1/012079), and further in view of Certhon et al. (Published: 2022, Publication: web publication at HortiDaily.com / Annet Breure accessed at https://www.hortidaily.com/article/9442012/indoor-growing-system-for-cherry-tomatoes-where-no-labor-is-needed/), and further in view of Samuolinene et al. (Published: 2021, Agronomy 11, 901, pages:1-10 https://doi.org/10.3390/).
Claims are drawn to a method of producing tomatoes by growing them in vertical growth column that produce at least four generations and harvest in one calendar year. Claims are further drawn to the environmental control of the growth system.
Regarding claim 1, Whitcher et al. claim 1 teaches method of growing a crop plant in a vertical growth column. Whitcher et al. teaches the crop of plants are continuously staged in their planting cycles about the columns so as to provide a continuous annual yield (col. 8, lines 17-20). Whitcher et al. teaches their structure is suitable for seedling or smaller plants (col. 30, lines 33-45).
Whitcher et al. does not specifically teach growing tomato seeds or seedlings in the growing system and the seeds or seedlings are selected to produce at least four generation and harvests of the tomatoes within one calendar year.
Balashova et al. teaches they have analyzed economic efficiency of samples of 692 varieties In multi-tiered hydroponic installation (page 1 abstract) wherein for example small fruited variety and medium fruited varieties maturation i.e. from shoot emergence (seedlings) to ripe fruit is 78-82 days (page 3, Table 1) which would have at least 4 cycle per year. Furthermore, Certhon et al. teaches indoor growing of cherry tomatoes (page 2, first paragraph) wherein the plants can be grown 5 rounds (i.e. Cycle) per year.
Therefore it would have been obvious before an effective date of filling of the invention from some teaching, suggestions and modification from Whitcher et al. , Balashova et al. and Certhon et al. to plant to develop a method of producing tomato in a vertical growth column wherein the tomato seeds or seedlings are selected to produce at least four generation and harvests of the tomatoes within one calendar year.
Regarding claim 2, Whitcher et al. claim 1 teaches the vertical growth column is located within the growing chamber, wherein the vertical growth column contains a plurality of vertically aligned hydroponic plant growth modules, each of them comprising a growth media.
Regarding claim 3, Whitcher et al. claim 1 teaches the plant growing system comprise a light emitting source positioned laterally from the light emitting source positioned laterally from the vertical growth column and a nutrient supply system configured to direct the aqueous crop nutrient solution to the plurality of vertically aligned hydroponic plant growth modules, wherein the aqueous crop nutrient solution flows through the upper opening and the lower opening of each of the plurality of vertically aligned hydroponic plant growth modules contained within the vertical growth column.
Regarding claim 4, Whitcher et al. claim 7 teaches the light emitting source comprises light emitting diodes (LEDs).
Regarding claim 5, Whitcher et al. teaches emitted light is filtered or adapted to emit a specific wavelength range to the growing plants to, for example, encourage plant growth rate, flavor profile, or some other characteristic, which may be specific to a given crop or varietal (col. 40, lines 36-41).
Samuoliene et al. teaches treatment of tomato plant in a walk-in controlled-environment growth chamber with the electromagnetic radiation ranging from 385-740 nm using light emitting diodes (LED) for illumination (page2, last two paragraphs) which resulted in various growth in seedling, growth and fruiting states of the tomato plants (page 6, Figure2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to use the 10nm to 400nm wavelength range for growth of a tomato plant from suggestions from Samuoliene et al. in the method taught by Whitcher et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Whitcher et al. their plant growing system is designed to allow for minimum of 40 plants in given cubic foot of space (col. 42, lines46-47), since foot is smaller measurement (i.e. 1 m ~3 feet), Whitcher et al. teaches their method is designed for more at least more than 20 plants per square meter.
Regarding claims 7-8, and 13-14 , Certhon et al. teaches their tomato has brix value of 9.5 and 10.5 (i.e. at least 6 or 8 or more).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Whitcher et al. teaches adjustment of environmental conditions (Figure 21A).
Whitcher et al. teaches emitted light is filtered or adapted to emit a specific wavelength range to the growing plants to, for example, encourage plant growth rate, flavor profile, or some other characteristic, which may be specific to a given crop or varietal (col. 40, lines 36-41).
Whitcher et al. teaches environmental condition for example showed in Figure 20 (see snipped of Fig. 20 below) which include, artificial light intensity, temperature, air speed, humidity, carbon dioxide concentration etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
829
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Whitcher et al.’s plant growing system is free of fencing and trellising (see Figure 2-7).
Balashova et al. teaches they have analyzed economic efficiency of samples of 692 varieties In multi-tiered hydroponic installation (page 1 abstract) wherein for example small fruited variety and medium fruited varieties maturation i.e. from shoot emergence (seedlings) to ripe fruit is 78-82 days (page 3, table 1) which would have at least 4 cycle per year.
Regarding claim 11, Whitcher et al.’s claim 8 recite the control system wherein the system regulates flow rate of aqueous crop nutrient solution (i.e. growth condition).
Regarding claim 15, Balashova et al. teaches their plant produce 500 g/plant in small fruited variety and 850-1000 g/plant in medium fruited variety (page3, Table 1).
Regarding claim 17, since each square meter would comprise at least 40 plants in the method of Whitcher et al. Furthermore, Balashova et al. page 3, Table 1 teaches 1 fruit mass in 10-55 gms which would produce at least 380-500 gm/m2/day or more.
Obvious over Castro et al. and further in view of Whitcher et al. and Certhon et al. and Ghosh et al.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and further in view of Castro et al. (Published: 07/2023, Journal: Heredity 131: 201 – 210), and further in view of Whitcher et al. and further in view of Certhon et al., and Ghosh et al. (Published: 2018, Journal: Nature Protocol 13:2944–2963).
Claims are drawn to method of producing tomato line by cross pollinating tomato plants and growing the progeny in same tower and selecting the third generation plants. Furthermore, crossing the third plants to generate offspring and select third plants based on the agronomic character of first plants in sperate towers.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Castro et al. teaches product development program wherein the program comprises the breeding scheme for cross pollinating first and second rice plants to develop the offspring rice seed (i.e. F1) and grow them into first population (i.e. F2) and selecting the third generation of first population (i.e. F2:4) based on the agronomic traits of the first population. Castro et al. furthermore teaches the recycling the F2:4 individuals for crossings among them to produce more desirable cultivars (see Figure 1 below).
Castro et al. teaches the performance of segregating families in early generations is a good predictor of the mean performance of the inbred lines derived from them which improves the quantitative traits in elite population by utilizing high additive genetic values as new parents, as in RS, or the selection of inbred lines (page 202 and 203, last and first paragraphs). Castro et al. teaches the early generation testing combines the evaluation of yield in segregating families and recombination of the best families with elite inbred lines and commercial cultivars, before the advanced inbreeding stage (page 203, first paragraphs).
Castro et al. teaches their approach can accelerate the gain due to selection per unit time by greatly shortening the breeding cycle and through the accurate selection of plants at early stages with inclusion of genomic tools(e.g., S0 or S0:1 generations) for immediate recombination (page 208 and 209, last and first paragraph).
Therefore someone skilled in the art would utilize the breeding method for increasing the desirable quantitative alleles in the tomato lines.
Castro teaches growing plants in multisite yield trials in field (page 203, right paragraph 3).
Castro et al. does not teach growing the hybrid offspring in separate towers and the seeds has agronomical trait of producing at least four generations per calendar year (claim 18) and seeds produce at least one tomato within 90 days (claim 19).
PNG
media_image2.png
878
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Balashova et al. teaches they have analyzed economic efficiency of samples of 692 varieties nn multi-tiered hydroponic installation (page 1 abstract) wherein for example small fruited variety and medium fruited varieties maturation i.e. from shoot emergence (seedlings) to ripe fruit is 78-82 days (page 3, Table 1) which would have at least 4 cycle per year. Furthermore, Certhon et al. teaches indoor growing of cherry tomatoes (page 2, first paragraph) wherein the plants can be grown 5 rounds (i.e. Cycle) per year.
Furthermore, Ghosh et al. teaches a speed breeding of crop plants utilizing adjustment in light, photoperiod, temperature, humidity etc. in growth chambers (i.e. indoor farming) (page2945, Box1). Ghosh et al. teaches their method shorten breeding cycle and accelerate crop research through rapid generation advancement (page 2944, Abstract),
Whitcher et al. claim 1 teaches method of growing a crop plant in a vertical growth column. Whitcher et al. teaches the crop of plants are continuously staged in their planting cycles about the columns so as to provide a continuous annual yield (col. 8, lines 17-20). Whitcher et al. teaches their structure is suitable for seedling or smaller plants (col. 30, lines 33-45).
Thus it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective date of filling of the invention from some teachings, suggestions and motivation from Castro et al. to develop a crossing scheme as taught by Castro et al. for efficient breeding and use the known technique of Castro et al. from rice to a tomato crop and since tomatoes are grown in indoor environment and since there is available scheme of speed breeding as taught by Ghosh et al. Someone skilled in the art would utilize the shorter generation tomato plants as taught by Balashova et al. and Certhon et al. for rapid generation advance. Someone skilled in the art would modify the technique of Castro et al. to speed up the generations advance in a vertical growth column in the controlled environment as taught by Whitcher et al. leading to the development of rapid method of producing tomato seed line.
Regarding claim 20, Certhon et al. teaches their tomato has brix value of 9.5 and 10.5 (i.e. at least 6 or more).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,306,847 B2 (Hereafter referenced as Patent ‘847) in view of Balashova et al., Certhon et al., Samuolinene et al.
Claims are drawn to a method of producing tomatoes by growing them in vertical growth column that produce at least four generations and harvest in one calendar year. Claims are further drawn to the environmental control of the growth system.
Regarding claim 1, Patent ‘847 claim 1 teaches method of growing a crop plant in a vertical growth column. Patent ‘847 teaches the crop of plants are continuously staged in their planting cycles about the columns so as to provide a continuous annual yield (col. 8, lines 17-20). Patent ‘847 teaches their structure is suitable for seedling or smaller plants (col. 30, lines 33-45).
Patent ‘847 does not specifically teach growing tomato seeds or seedlings in the growing system and the seeds or seedlings are selected to produce at least four generation and harvests of the tomatoes within one calendar year.
Balashova et al. teaches they have analyzed economic efficiency of samples of 692 varieties In multi-tiered hydroponic installation (page 1 abstract) wherein for example small fruited variety and medium fruited varieties maturation i.e. from shoot emergence (seedlings) to ripe fruit is 78-82 days (page 3, Table 1) which would have at least 4 cycle per year. Furthermore, Certhon et al. teaches indoor growing of cherry tomatoes (page 2, first paragraph) wherein the plants can be grown 5 rounds (i.e. Cycle) per year.
Therefore it would have been obvious before an effective date of filling of the invention from some teaching, suggestions and modification from Patent ‘847, Balashova et al. and Certhon et al. to plant to develop a method of producing tomato in a vertical growth column wherein the tomato seeds or seedlings are selected to produce at least four generation and harvests of the tomatoes within one calendar year.
Regarding claim 2, Patent ‘847 claim 1 teaches the vertical growth column is located within the growing chamber, wherein the vertical growth column contains a plurality of vertically aligned hydroponic plant growth modules, each of them comprising a growth media.
Regarding claim 3, Patent ‘847 claim 1 teaches the plant growing system comprise a light emitting source positioned laterally from the light emitting source positioned laterally from the vertical growth column and a nutrient supply system configured to direct the aqueous crop nutrient solution to the plurality of vertically aligned hydroponic plant growth modules, wherein the aqueous crop nutrient solution flows through the upper opening and the lower opening of each of the plurality of vertically aligned hydroponic plant growth modules contained within the vertical growth column.
Regarding claim 4, Patent ‘847 claim 7 teaches the light emitting source comprises light emitting diodes (LEDs).
Regarding claim 5, Patent ‘847 teaches emitted light is filtered or adapted to emit a specific wavelength range to the growing plants to, for example, encourage plant growth rate, flavor profile, or some other characteristic, which may be specific to a given crop or varietal (col. 40, lines 36-41).
Samuoliene et al. teaches treatment of tomato plant in a walk-in controlled-environment growth chamber with the electromagnetic radiation ranging from 385-740 nm using light emitting diodes (LED) for illumination (page2, last two paragraphs) which resulted in various growth in seedling, growth and fruiting states of the tomato plants (page 6, Figure2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to use the 10nm to 400 wavelength range for growth of a tomato plant from suggestions from Samuoliene et al. in the method taught by Patent ‘847
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Patent ‘847 their plant growing system is designed to allow for minimum of 40 plants in given cubic foot of space (col. 42, lines46-47), since foot is smaller measurement (i.e. 1 m ~3 feet), Whitcher et al. teaches their method is designed for more at least more than 20 plants per square meter.
Regarding claims 7-8, and 13-14 , Certhon et al. teaches their tomato has brix value of 9.5 and 10.5 (i.e. at least 6 or 8 or more).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Patent ‘847 teaches adjustment of environmental conditions (Figure 21A).
Patent ‘847 teaches emitted light is filtered or adapted to emit a specific wavelength range to the growing plants to, for example, encourage plant growth rate, flavor profile, or some other characteristic, which may be specific to a given crop or varietal (col. 40, lines 36-41).
Patent ‘847 teaches environmental condition for example showed in Figure 20 (see snipped of Fig. 20 above) which include, artificial light intensity, temperature, air speed, humidity, carbon dioxide concentration etc.
Regarding claim 10, Patent ‘847’s plant growing system is free of fencing and trellising (see Figure 2-7).
Balashova et al. teaches they have analyzed economic efficiency of samples of 692 varieties In multi-tiered hydroponic installation (page 1 abstract) wherein for example small fruited variety and medium fruited varieties maturation i.e. from shoot emergence (seedlings) to ripe fruit is 78-82 days (page 3, table 1) which would have at least 4 cycle per year.
Regarding claim 11, Patent ‘847 claim 8 recite the control system wherein the system regulates flow rate of aqueous crop nutrient solution (i.e. growth condition).
Regarding claim 15, Balashova et al. teaches their plant produce 500 g/plant in small fruited variety and 850-1000 g/plant in medium fruited variety (page3, Table 1).
Regarding claim 17, since each square meter would comprise at least 40 plants in the method of Patent ‘847. Furthermore, Balashova et al. page 3, Table 1 teaches 1 fruit mass in 10-55 gms which would produce at least 380-500 gm/m2/day or more.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,306,847 B2 (Hereafter referenced as Patent ‘847) and further in view of Castro et al. and further in view of Certhon et al. and further in view of Ghosh et al.
Claims are drawn to method of producing tomato line by cross pollinating tomato plants and growing the progeny in same tower and selecting the third generation plants. Furthermore, crossing the third plants to generate offspring and select third plants based on the agronomic character of first plants in sperate towers.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Patent ‘847 claim 1 teaches method of growing a crop plant in a vertical growth column. Patent ‘847 teaches the crop of plants are continuously staged in their planting cycles about the columns so as to provide a continuous annual yield (col. 8, lines 17-20). Patent ‘847 teaches their structure is suitable for seedling or smaller plants (col. 30, lines 33-45).
Castro et al. teaches product development program wherein the program comprises the breeding scheme for cross pollinating first and second tomato plant to develop the offspring tomato seed (i.e. F1) and grow them into first population (i.e. F2) and selecting the third generation of first population (i.e. F2:4) based on the agronomic traits of the first population. Castro et al. furthermore teaches the recycling the F2:4 individuals for crossings among them to produce more desirable cultivars (see Figure 1 below).
Castro et al. teaches the performance of segregating families in early generations is a good predictor of the mean performance of the inbred lines derived from them which improves the quantitative traits in elite population by utilizing high additive genetic values as new parents, as in RS, or the selection of inbred lines (page 202 and 203, last and first paragraphs). Castro et al. teaches the early generation testing combines the evaluation of yield in segregating families and recombination of the best families with elite inbred lines and commercial cultivars, before the advanced inbreeding stage (page 203, first paragraphs).
Castro et al. teaches their approach can accelerate the gain due to selection per unit time by greatly shortening the breeding cycle and through the accurate selection of plants at early stages with inclusion of genomic tools(e.g., S0 or S0:1 generations) for immediate recombination (page 208 and 209, last and first paragraph).
Therefore someone skilled in the art would utilize the breeding method for increasing the desirable quantitative alleles in the tomato lines.
Castro teaches growing plants in multisite yield trials in field (page 203, right paragraph 3).
Castro et al. does not teach growing the hybrid offspring in separate towers and the seeds has agronomical trait of producing at least four generations per calendar year (claim 18) and seeds produce at least one tomato within 90 days (claim 19)
Balashova et al. teaches they have analyzed economic efficiency of samples of 692 varieties In multi-tiered hydroponic installation (page 1 abstract) wherein for example small fruited variety and medium fruited varieties maturation i.e. from shoot emergence (seedlings) to ripe fruit is 78-82 days (page 3, Table 1) which would have at least 4 cycle per year. Furthermore, Certhon et al. teaches indoor growing of cherry tomatoes (page 2, first paragraph) wherein the plants can be grown 5 rounds (i.e. Cycle) per year.
Furthermore, Ghosh et al. teaches a speed breeding of crop plants utilizing adjustment in light, photoperiod, temperature, humidity etc. in growth chambers (i.e. indoor farming) (page2945, Box1). Ghosh et al. teaches their method shorten breeding cycle and accelerate crop research through rapid generation advancement (page 2944, Abstract).
Thus it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective date of filling of the invention from some teachings, suggestions and motivation from Castro et al. to develop a crossing scheme as taught by Castro et al. for efficient breeding and use the known technique of Castro et al. from rice to a tomato crop and since tomatoes are grown in indoor environment and since there is available scheme of speed breeding as taught by Ghosh et al. Someone skilled in the art would utilize the shorter generation tomato plants as taught by Balashova et al. and Certhon et al. for rapid generation advance. Someone skilled in the art would modify the technique of Castro et al. to speed up the generations advance in a vertical growth column in the controlled environment as taught by Patent ‘847 leading to the development of rapid method of producing tomato seed line.
Regarding claim 20, Certhon et al. teaches their tomato has brix value of 9.5 and 10.5 (i.e. at least 6 or more).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, AMJAD A. ABRAHAM can be reached at (571)270-7058. 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.
/SANTOSH SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights