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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 “illumination energy Emax is choen such that” should read “illumination energy Emax is chosen such that”
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Such a claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention. MPEP § 2173.05(p). The preamble states “A plurality of rapid pulse programmed seeds obtaining at least one of improved germination probability, increased root mass, and increased crop yield” showing that this is a product claim. However, the claim goes on the state method steps such as “transporting said seeds to and from a processing theater.” Therefore it is unclear as to whether this is a product or process claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11, 18-19, 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12256660. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, the ‘660 patent teaches a method for rapid pulse programming of a seed (line 1), to obtain at least one of improved germination probability, increased root mass, and increased crop yield (lines 2-3), wherein said method comprises:
[1] transporting said seeds to and from a processing theater (line 22);
[2] illumination of said seeds in said processing theater with electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength distribution ranging from 300 nm to 20 microns (lines 6-7), and said illuminating so formed and arrayed and timed to illuminate said seed with a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watts/cm2 and a maximum average irradiance of 7 Watts/cm2 (lines 8-10), and also having a narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy from 1/2 Joule/cm2 (lines 10-12), to one of:
[a] 3 Joules/cm2 (this is not required by claim due to “one of” language) and
[b] a transition point cumulative illumination energy Emax Joules/cm2 (lines 12-13) chosen so as to specifically engage and cause an irradiance-sensitive and energy-sensitive hidden stimulative exposure response in said seed within said narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy, and so as to avoid illumination of higher cumulative illumination energy that would cause a different and destructive exposure response in said seed (lines 14-20).
Regarding Claim 4, the ‘660 patent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said wavelength distribution comprises at least one of Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation and an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution (IRID) (claim 3 lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 5, the ‘660 patent teaches the method of claim 4, wherein said wavelength distribution comprises both Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation and an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution (IRID) (claim 3 lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 7, the ‘660 patent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said rapid pulse programming of a seed is preceded by a warmup illumination (claim 2 lines 1-2) comprising illuminating said seed with electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength distribution ranging from 300 nm to 20 microns (claim 2 lines 3-5) with a with a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watts/cm2 for a total cumulative illumination energy of less than 1/2 Joule /cm2 (claim 2 lines 5-7).
Regarding Claim 11, the ‘660 patent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said processing theater comprises a seed accumulator (claim 1 lines 22-23).
Regarding Claim 18, the ‘660 patent teaches the method of claim 11, wherein said processing theater is inside a combine harvester (claim 1 line 24), and said transporting comprises transporting said seed from a thresher of said combine harvester to said processing theater (claim 1 lines 25-27).
Regarding Claim 19, the ‘660 patent teaches the method of claim 11, wherein said processing theater is inside a heated tube auger-fed exposure unit, so constructed, sized and operated to provide said illuminating internally to said seed (Claim 4 lines 24-26, claim 4 of the ‘660 patent similarly teaches claims 1 and 11 from which claim 19 depends).
Regarding Claim 22, the ‘660 patent teaches a plurality of rapid pulse programmed seeds obtaining at least one of improved germination probability, increased root mass, and increased crop yield, said rapid pulse programming comprising (claim 1 lines 1-3):
[1] transporting said seeds to and from a processing theater (claim 1 line 22);
[2] illumination of said seeds in said processing theater with electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength distribution ranging from 300 nm to 20 microns (claim 1 lines 6-7), and said illuminating so formed and arrayed and timed to illuminate said seed with a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watts/cm2 and a maximum average irradiance of 7 Watts/cm2 (claim 1 lines 8-10), and also having a narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy from 1/2 Joule/cm2 (claim 1 lines 10-12), to one of:
[a] 3 Joules/cm2 (this is not required by claim due to “one of” language) and
[b] a transition point cumulative illumination energy Emax Joules/cm2 (claim 1 lines 12-13) chosen so as to specifically engage and cause an irradiance-sensitive and energy-sensitive hidden stimulative exposure response in said seed within said narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy, and so as to avoid illumination of higher cumulative illumination energy that would cause a different and destructive exposure response in said seed (claim 1 lines 14-20).
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson et al. (US 2012/0042419)
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson teaches A method for rapid pulse programming of a seed, to obtain at least one of improved germination probability, increased root mass, and increased crop yield (Abstract), wherein said method comprises:
[1] transporting said seeds to and from a processing theater (“Doses of UV-C light were administered to corn, soybean, and wheat sowing seed by placing a monolayer of the seed randomly oriented on a flat tray” Paragraph [0074] this is equivalent to a seed accumulator, seeds are then moved to planting Paragraph [0076]);
[2] illumination of said seeds in said processing theater with electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength distribution ranging from 300 nm to 20 microns (“the pulsed UV light includes a high peak power of wavelengths from about 200 to 1100 nm.” Paragraph [0010]), and said illuminating so formed and arrayed and timed to illuminate said seed with a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watts/cm2 and a maximum average irradiance of 7 Watts/cm2 (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 120, 130, 140, and 150 kJ/m2 which are 12, 13, 14 or 15 J/cm2; Paragraph [0051] states “a treatment plan may include low doses initially followed by a progressive increase in the dose at varying lengths of time. Suitable time includes 1-10 minutes.” Therefore, for example, 15 J/cm2 divided by 60 seconds is equal to 0.25 W/cm2), and also having a narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy from 1/2 Joule/cm2, to one of:
[a] 3 Joules/cm2 and
[b] a transition point cumulative illumination energy Emax Joules/cm2 chosen so as to specifically engage and cause an irradiance-sensitive and energy-sensitive hidden stimulative exposure response in said seed within said narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy, and so as to avoid illumination of higher cumulative illumination energy that would cause a different and destructive exposure response in said seed (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 120, 130, 140, and 150 kJ/m2 which are 12, 13, 14 or 15 J/cm2 which are listed as possible transition points).
Regarding Claim 2, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said transition point cumulative illumination energy Emax is choen such that said narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy is one of: 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 4 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 5 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 6 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 7 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 8 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 9 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 10 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 11 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 12 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 13 Joules/cm2; 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 14 Joules/cm2; and 1/2 Joule/cm2 to 15 Joules/cm2 (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 120, 130, 140, and 150 kJ/m2 which are 12, 13, 14 or 15 J/cm2 which are listed as possible transition points).
Regarding Claim 7, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said rapid pulse programming of a seed is preceded by a warmup illumination comprising illuminating said seed with electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength distribution ranging from 300 nm to 20 microns with a with a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watts/cm2 for a total cumulative illumination energy of less than 1/2 Joule/cm2 (“It is also possible to include a multitude of doses within a treatment regimen instead of a single dose.” Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein during said illuminating, said seed is at least one of:
[1] under control by an agricultural planter process,
[2] under control by seed metering in an agricultural process, and
[3] being deposited by an agricultural planter process (Paragraph [0074] being deposited on a tray); wherein said agricultural planter process is so operated for at least one of metering and deposition of said (“Doses of UV-C light were administered to corn, soybean, and wheat sowing seed by placing a monolayer of the seed randomly oriented on a flat tray” Paragraph [0074] this is equivalent to depositing a seed).
Regarding Claim 10, Wilson teaches the method of claim 9, wherein said illuminating is arrayed, positioned, operated, deployed, and energized to illuminate said seed in said agricultural planter process in at least one of
[1] a hopper storage point,
[2] a transfer point,
[3] a seed accumulation point,
[4] a seed metering point,
[5] a soil opening point,
[6] a soil closing point, and
[7] a seed deposition point of said agricultural planter process (“Doses of UV-C light were administered to corn, soybean, and wheat sowing seed by placing a monolayer of the seed randomly oriented on a flat tray” Paragraph [0074] this is equivalent to a seed accumulation point or a seed deposition point).
Regarding Claim 11, Wilson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said processing theater comprises a seed accumulator (“Doses of UV-C light were administered to corn, soybean, and wheat sowing seed by placing a monolayer of the seed randomly oriented on a flat tray” Paragraph [0074] this is equivalent to a seed accumulator).
Regarding Claim 21, Wilson teaches an illuminated agricultural planter that allows rapid pulse programming of a seed, to obtain at least one of improved germination probability, increased root mass, and increased crop yield, wherein said illuminated agricultural planter comprises:
[1] an agricultural planter so formed, sized, and operated for at least one of metering and deposition of said seed (“Doses of UV-C light were administered to corn, soybean, and wheat sowing seed by placing a monolayer of the seed randomly oriented on a flat tray” Paragraph [0074] this is equivalent to the process of depositing a seed as defined by Planter in applicant’s specification);
[2] an illuminator so sized, positioned, operated, deployed, and energized to illuminate said seed in said agricultural planter in at least one of a hopper, a transfer point, a seed accumulation point, a seed metering point, a soil opening point, a soil closing point, and a seed deposition point of said agricultural planter (“Doses of UV-C light were administered to corn, soybean, and wheat sowing seed by placing a monolayer of the seed randomly oriented on a flat tray” Paragraph [0074] this is equivalent to a seed accumulation point or a seed deposition point);
said illuminator further so sized, positioned, operated, deployed and energized to illuminate said seed with electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength distribution ranging from 300 nm to 20 microns (“the pulsed UV light includes a high peak power of wavelengths from about 200 to 1100 nm.” Paragraph [0010]), and said illuminating so formed and arrayed and timed to illuminate said seed with a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watts/cm2 and a maximum average irradiance of 7 Watts/cm2 (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 120, 130, 140, and 150 kJ/m2 which are 12, 13, 14 or 15 J/cm2; Paragraph [0051] states “a treatment plan may include low doses initially followed by a progressive increase in the dose at varying lengths of time. Suitable time includes 1-10 minutes.” Therefore, for example, 15 J/cm2 divided by 60 seconds is equal to 0.25 W/cm2), and also having a narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy from 1/2 Joule/cm2, to one of 3 Joules/cm2 and a transition point cumulative illumination energy Emax Joules/cm2, so as to specifically engage and cause an irradiance-sensitive and energy-sensitive hidden stimulative exposure response in said seed within said narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy, and so as to avoid illumination of higher cumulative illumination energy that would cause a different and destructive exposure response in said seed (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 120, 130, 140, and 150 kJ/m2 which are 12, 13, 14 or 15 J/cm2 which are listed as possible transition points).
Regarding Claim 22, Wilson teaches A plurality of rapid pulse programmed seeds obtaining at least one of improved germination probability, increased root mass, and increased crop yield (Abstract), said rapid pulse programming comprising:
[1] transporting said seeds to and from a processing theater (“Doses of UV-C light were administered to corn, soybean, and wheat sowing seed by placing a monolayer of the seed randomly oriented on a flat tray” Paragraph [0074] this is equivalent to a seed accumulator, seeds are then moved to planting Paragraph [0076]);
[2] illumination of said seeds in said processing theater with electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength distribution ranging from 300 nm to 20 microns (“the pulsed UV light includes a high peak power of wavelengths from about 200 to 1100 nm.” Paragraph [0010]), and said illuminating so formed and arrayed and timed to illuminate said seed with a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watts/cm2 and a maximum average irradiance of 7 Watts/cm2 (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 120, 130, 140, and 150 kJ/m2 which are 12, 13, 14 or 15 J/cm2; Paragraph [0051] states “a treatment plan may include low doses initially followed by a progressive increase in the dose at varying lengths of time. Suitable time includes 1-10 minutes.” Therefore, for example, 15 J/cm2 divided by 60 seconds is equal to 0.25 W/cm2), and also having a narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy from 1/2 Joule/cm2, to one of:
[a] 3 Joules/cm2 and
[b] a transition point cumulative illumination energy Emax Joules/ cm2 chosen so as to specifically engage and cause an irradiance-sensitive and energy-sensitive hidden stimulative exposure response in said seed within said narrow specific range of cumulative illumination energy, and so as to avoid illumination of higher cumulative illumination energy that would cause a different and destructive exposure response in said seed (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 120, 130, 140, and 150 kJ/m2 which are 12, 13, 14 or 15 J/cm2 which are listed as possible transition points).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2012/0042419) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Urban et al (US 2022/0400619).
Regarding Claim 3, Wilson discloses the method of claim 1.
Wilson fails to disclose the method wherein said minimum average irradiance is selected from any of 0.3 W/cm2 , 0.4 W/cm2 , 0.5 W/cm2 , 0.6 W/cm2 , 0.7 W/cm2 , 0.8 W/cm2 , 0.9 W/cm2 , and 1.0 W/cm2, 2.0 W/cm2 , 3.0 W/cm2 , 4.0 W/cm2, 5.0 W/cm2 , and 6.0 W/cm2.
However, Urban teaches a similar lighting method wherein said minimum average irradiance is selected from any of 0.3 W/cm2 , 0.4 W/cm2 , 0.5 W/cm2 , 0.6 W/cm2 , 0.7 W/cm2 , 0.8 W/cm2 , 0.9 W/cm2 , and 1.0 W/cm2, 2.0 W/cm2 , 3.0 W/cm2 , 4.0 W/cm2, 5.0 W/cm2 , and 6.0 W/cm2 (“wherein the optical power density of the panel is between 100 W/m.sup.2 and 10,000 W/m.sup.2, preferably between 300 W/m.sup.2 and 3,000 W/m.sup.2,” Paragraph [0033], 3000 W/m2 is equal to 0.3 W/cm2) and having a cumulative illumination energy of ½ to 15 Joules/cm2 (“durations but less than or equal to two seconds, preferably less than or equal to one second.” Paragraph [0033]; 0.3 W/cm2 over 2 seconds is 0.6 J/cm2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination of Wilson, with the minimum average irradiance of Urban, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help improve the yield and quality of the biological material (Urban, Abstract).
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2012/0042419) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Cheng (CN 203951930).
Regarding Claim 4, Wilson discloses the method of claim 1.
Wilson fails to disclose the method, wherein said wavelength distribution comprises at least one of Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation and an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution (IRID).
However, Cheng teaches a lighting method showing it is well known in the art to have said wavelength distribution comprise at least one of Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation (infrared device 8; “infrared light of 0.76 to 400 microns” Paragraph [0013]) and an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution (IRID) (LED lamps 2 and 5; Paragraph [0002]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination of Wilson, with the wavelengths of Cheng, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase germination probability (Cheng Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wilson in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 4.
Wilson fails to disclose the method, wherein said wavelength distribution comprises both Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation and an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution (IRID).
However, Cheng teaches a lighting method showing it is well known in the art to have said wavelength distribution comprises both Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation (infrared device 8; “infrared light of 0.76 to 400 microns” Paragraph [0013]) and an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution (IRID) (LED lamps 2 and 5; Paragraph [0002]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination of Wilson, with the wavelengths of Cheng, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase germination probability (Cheng Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wilson in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 4. Wilson further discloses energy levels as low as 0.07 W/cm2 (Paragraph [0034] lists suitable doses such as 40 kJ/m2 which is 4.2 J/cm2; Paragraph [0051] states “a treatment plan may include low doses initially followed by a progressive increase in the dose at varying lengths of time. Suitable time includes 1-10 minutes.” Therefore, for example, 4.2 J/cm2 divided by 60 seconds is equal to 0.07 W/cm2).
Wilson in view of Cheng fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein said illuminating comprises a minimum average irradiance of at least one of 4/10 Watt/cm2 of Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) and 7/100 Watts/cm2 of an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution (IRID).
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ranges of irradiance of Wilson, and the wavelengths of Cheng, to be exactly 4/10 Watt/cm2 and 7/100 Watt/cm2, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide the specific needs for healthy growth of different species of plants, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8, Wilson discloses the method of claim 7. Wilson further discloses having said warmup illumination (“It is also possible to include a multitude of doses within a treatment regimen instead of a single dose.” Paragraph [0051]).
Wilson fails to disclose the method, wherein said warmup illumination comprises Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation.
However, Cheng teaches a lighting method, wherein said illumination comprises Medium Wavelength Infrared (MWIR) radiation (infrared device 8; “infrared light of 0.76 to 400 microns” Paragraph [0013]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination of Wilson, with the wavelengths of Cheng, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase germination probability (Cheng Paragraph [0013]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2012/0042419) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Borrowman et al. (US 2019/0281781).
Regarding Claim 12, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11.
Wilson fails to disclose the method, wherein said transporting said seed to and from the processing theater comprises transporting said seed to and from a seed accumulator belt.
However, Borrowman teaches a method, wherein said transporting said seed to and from the processing theater comprises transporting said seed to and from a seed accumulator belt (conveyor belt 28, seed transported through hopper 20; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed accumulator of Wilson, to be a seed accumulator belt as taught by Borrowman, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the overall efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 13, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11.
Wilson fails to disclose the method, wherein said transporting said seed to and from the processing theater comprises transporting said seed to and from a transmissive seed accumulator belt, and wherein at least a portion of said illuminating said seed comprises passing at least some Indigo Region Illumination Distribution radiation through the transmissive seed accumulator belt.
However, Borrowman teaches a method, wherein said transporting said seed to and from the processing theater comprises transporting said seed to and from a transmissive seed accumulator belt (conveyor belt 28, seed transported through hopper 20; Figure 1), and wherein at least a portion of said illuminating said seed comprises passing at least some Indigo Region Illumination Distribution radiation through the transmissive seed accumulator belt (“blue light 37B mounted above the conveyor surface” Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed accumulator of Wilson, to be a seed accumulator belt as taught by Borrowman, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the overall efficiency of the system.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2012/0042419) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kotte et al. (DE 102012209435).
Regarding Claim 16, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11.
Wilson fails to disclose the method, wherein said transporting said seed to and from the processing theater comprises transporting said seed to and from a seed accumulator belt, and further comprises harvest handling by assembly and retention of said seed on a first portion of said seed accumulator belt, and expulsion of said seed from a second portion of said seed accumulator belt, by driving at least one of air flow and fluid flow through the belt, with said at least one of air flow and fluid flow so positioned to create a vacuum to assist in said assembly and retention at said first portion, and a positive pressure to assist in said expulsion at said second portion.
However, Kotte teaches a method, wherein said transporting said seed to and from the processing theater comprises transporting said seed to and from a seed accumulator belt (seeds 2a, conveyor 9), and further comprises harvest handling by assembly and retention of said seed on a first portion of said seed accumulator belt (conveyor 9 Figure 1), and expulsion of said seed from a second portion of said seed accumulator belt, by driving at least one of air flow and fluid flow through the belt (gas stream 5a Figure 1), with said at least one of air flow and fluid flow so positioned to create a vacuum to assist in said assembly and retention at said first portion, and a positive pressure to assist in said expulsion at said second portion (“The defined in the direction of fall decreasing gap width of the product guide channel 1 causes a continuous acceleration of the gas 5a within the product management channel 1 to the same extent as by gravity on the seed particles 2a acting acceleration.” Page 8 Paragraph 7 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed accumulator of Wilson, to have the belt and air flow as taught by Kotte, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the seed receives the proper amount of treatment without damaging the seed.
Regarding Claim 17, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11.
Wilson fails to disclose the method, wherein said seed is in motion such that it is one of flying and falling in said processing theater, and said illuminating is so further formed and arrayed to provide illuminating during a time of flight of said seeds.
However, Kotte teaches a method, wherein said seed (seeds 2a) is in motion such that it is one of flying and falling in said processing theater (Figure 1), and said illuminating is so further formed and arrayed to provide illuminating during a time of flight of said seeds (UV light emitting diodes 12 and 14; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed accumulator and illumination of Wilson, to have the illumination during flight as taught by Kotte, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the seed receives the proper amount of treatment without damaging the seed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if a proper terminal disclaimer is filed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nicole et al. (CA 3071310), Suntych (WO 2016/033350), Jackson et al. (US 8872136), and Jensen (WO 9533374) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar illumination methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642