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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on December 23, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered. Claim 1 is currently pending and has been examined. This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 29, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the Examiner notes that a translated copy of non-patent literature document QIN, Xuan et al. has not been filed. Although Applicant’s remarks, filed December 23, 2025, state that a translated copy has been submitted, no translated copy has been received. Re-submission of the translated copy, if available, is respectfully requested.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 contains the phrase “Disclosed is a…”, which is implied. It is suggested to amend the abstract by combining the first two sentences to read as --A breeding method for cultivating a cold-resistant and high-temperature-resistant Ananas comosus germplasm comprises the following technical key points…--.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Although Applicant’s remarks, filed December 23, 2025, state that an amended abstract has been submitted, no amended abstract has been received. Re-submission of the amended abstract is respectfully requested.
Additionally, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Table 1” in para [0028] shows an observation date of “February, 2029”, which appears to be a clerical error.
Appropriate correction is required. Although Applicant’s remarks, filed December 23, 2025, state that a specification containing amendments to “Table 1” has been submitted, the amendments to “Table 1” have not been received. Re-submission of the amended “Table 1” of the specification is respectfully requested.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 33-34, it is suggested to amend the phrase “during this 90-day cultivation period” to --during the period-- to more clearly refer back to the previously recited period.
In claim 1, lines 35-36, it is suggested the amend the phrase “in response to observing that 25 leaves come out, preparing a 2000-fold aqueous solution of chlormequat chloride” to --preparing a 2000-fold aqueous solution of chlormequat chloride in response to observing that 25 leaves come out--.
In claim 1, lines 42-43, it is suggested to amend the phrase “by compounding the foliar fertilizer in the (S2)” to --by compounding the foliar fertilizer in (S2)--.
In claim 1, line 44, it is suggested to amend “S4:” to --(S4)-- and move the step number to the end of the limitation paragraph in order to better conform with current U.S. practice and to maintain formatting consistency throughout the claim.
In claim 1, line 44, in regard to the step title “domestication culture in fruit stage”, it is suggested to remove the step title from the claim in order to better conform with current U.S. practice and to maintain formatting consistency throughout the claim.
In claim 1, lines 44-46, it is suggested to amend the phrase “on a 60th day after the flower forcing, preparing an aqueous solution by compounding 2%o potassium dihydrogen phosphate with the foliar fertilizer in the (S2)” to -- preparing an aqueous solution by compounding 2%o potassium dihydrogen phosphate with the foliar fertilizer in (S2) on a 60th day after the flower forcing—.
In claim 1, lines 45-46, it is suggested to amend the phrase “by compounding 2%o potassium dihydrogen phosphate with the foliar fertilizer in the (S2)” to --by compounding 2%o potassium dihydrogen phosphate with the foliar fertilizer in (S2)--.
In claim 1, lines 49-50, it is suggested to amend the phrase “on a 120th day after the flower forcing, picking fruits” to --picking fruits on a 120th day after the flower forcing--.
In claim 1, lines 51-52, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the operations of fertilization in the (S2)” to --the operations of fertilization in (S2)--.
In claim 1, line 54-55, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the operations of cold-resistant domestication culture in the (S2)” to --the operations of cold-resistant domestication culture in (S2)--.
In claim 1, line 58, a space appears to be missing between “(S2)” and “for”.
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 1 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.
Claim 1, lines 38-39, recites “taking a measure to perform the flower forcing during the period”. It is unclear as to what the phrase “taking a measure” refers. The phrase could be understood to mean that a literal measurement is being taken, wherein it is further unclear what is being measured, or it could be understood to mean that efforts are made to perform flower forcing within the period. As such, the scope of the claim is considered indefinite. Based on the Examiner’s understanding of the instant invention, it is suggested to amend the phrase to instead state, --performing the flower forcing during the period-- to omit the indefinite language.
Claim 1, lines 40-41, recites “on a 30th day after the flower forcing, observing an emergence of a red inflorescence from a plant crown, and applying a foliar fertilizer…”. It is unclear how the step of “observing an emergence of a red inflorescence” can be controlled. In other words, one performing the claimed method would not necessarily be able to observe an emergence of a red inflorescence from a plant crown as some of the Ananas comosus plants cultivated by the claimed method may not necessarily develop properly to produce a red inflorescence or may die during the claimed cultivation method. As such, this aspect of the invention does not appear to be controllable. Based on the Examiner’s understanding of the instant invention, it is suggested to amend the phrase to instead state, --on a 30th day after the flower forcing, observing a plant crown for emergence of a red inflorescence, and applying a foliar fertilizer…--.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 1-6 of 9), filed December 23, 2025, regarding the objections and rejections outlined in the Non-Final Rejection, filed November 26, 2025, have been acknowledged. The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s efforts to amend the application to overcome the objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections. However, the Examiner notes that some of the amendments noted within the Remarks do not appear to be incorporated into the submission (e.g., abstract amendments, amendments to “Table 1” of the specification, etc.). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully requests that the remaining objections/rejections noted in the above Final Rejection be addressed in a further response.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Since amendments to the claims, filed December 23, 2025, are related to matters of form and have no bearing on allowability in view of prior art, the subject matter of claim 1 remains allowable per the reasons provided in the Non-Final Rejection, filed on November 26, 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647