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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Invention IV (Claim 17) in the reply filed on July 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicants are reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
The terms “accelerating” and “increasing” in claim 17 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “accelerating” and “increasing” are 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. Applicants need to provide a comparison to a control such as a non-pruned Coffea arabica plant.
Lack of Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for lighting provided by LED grow lamps 50 µmol s-1 for a photoperiod of 14 h per day, lighting provided by 4 high-pressure sodium vapor lamps, 400 W each, lighting provided by LED lighting 105 µmoles m-2 s-1 in average, and lighting provided by HPS lamps delivering 50 µmoles.m-2 s-1 and pruning by cutting does not reasonably provide enablement for any controlled lighting or any type of pruning. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with this claim. Applicants teach controlled lighting and pruning as stated above and in the two examples shown on pages 14-17 of the specification which accelerate time to flowering and/or increase the number of flowers formed. Applicants have not taught any other controlled lighting or type of pruning to which accelerate time to flowering and/or increase the number of flowers formed. This amounts to undue experimentation and thus is not supported by a sufficiently enabling disclosure.
Inadequate Written Description
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicants broadly claim the family Rubiacea which is a diverse Family containing approximately 615 Genera and about 14,200 species including terrestrial trees, shrubs, and ornamentals. Applicants do not describe every Genera and species within Rubiacea. Applicants have only described and reduced to practice Coffae arabica.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Somarriba et al.; (Modeling age and yield dynamics in Coffea arabica pruning systems; Agricultural Systems; Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL; Vol. 201, June 24, 2022; pages 1-12).
Somarriba et al. teach a method comprising using pruning for increasing the number of flowers formed by a plant of the family rubiaceae, (Coffae arabica), wherein the pruning is carried out on a cultivated shoot of the plant at a growth stage in which the cultivated shoot has branched into an orthotropic shoot and at least two plagiotropic branches, and wherein the pruning comprises removing at least the orthotropic shoot and maintaining at least one plagiotropic branch (Page 2, Column 1, first paragraph through page 3, Column 1, second paragraph, and Figure 1).
Future Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT L BELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0973. The examiner can normally be reached M- Th, 6 - 4:30pm.
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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at 571-270-0305. 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.
/KENT L. BELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1661
/KENT L BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1661
Prosecution Insights