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
1. Claims 4-14 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Claims 1-3 are withdrawn, without traverse, from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant’s election without traverse in the reply filed on July 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Restrictions/Elections
2. The Office acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s restriction election filed July 15, 2026. Applicant elects Group IV, claims 4-14, drawn to a cultivation method for a tomato plant body, without traverse.
The requirement is deemed proper and is made FINAL. However, method claims may be rejoined in accordance with In re Ochiai when allowability is indicated.
Priority
3. The instant Application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/JP2024/005351 filed February 15, 2024. The Office acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s foreign priority document JP2023-027720 filed February 24, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on August 12, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered to the extent of the English translations provided. A signed copy is attached.
Specification
5. The specification is objected to because of the following:
In [0005], the recitation of “a period at least from a time point of beginning” the recitation contains several grammatical, syntactical, and/or typographical errors that obscure the intended recitation. For example, it appears the article “the” should be inserted before “beginning”. It is unclear if other terms or phrases are missing from the recitation. A close and careful review is requested.
[0005] comprises a grammatical and/or syntactical error. It is recommended the recitation of “wherein a content of the sodium chloride” be amended to “wherein the content of sodium chloride”. As recited, the recitation appears to encompass multiple contents of sodium chloride. Similarly, it is recommended “a total mass” be amended to “the total mass” unless Applicant intends to encompass multiple total masses within the nutrient solution. That is to say, the recitation of “a total mass of the nutrient solution” is interpreted to encompass the total mass of individual components (e.g., sucrose or NaCl or water) within the nutrient solution as well as the total mass of the nutrient solution. For similar reasons, the recitation of “a lycopene content”, “a content of the nitrogen” are also objected to. All subsequent recitations of these phrases are also objected to.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 5-14 are objected to because of the following:
Claim 5 comprises a grammatical and/or syntactical error. It is recommended the recitation of “wherein a content of the sodium chloride” be amended to “wherein the content of sodium chloride”. As recited, the claim appears to encompass multiple contents of sodium chloride. Similarly, it is recommended “a total mass” be amended to “the total mass” unless Applicant intends to encompass multiple total masses within the nutrient solution. That is to say, the recitation of “a total mass of the nutrient solution” is interpreted to encompass the total mass of individual components (e.g., sucrose or NaCl or water) within the nutrient solution as well as the total mass of the nutrient solution. For similar reasons, claims 6-7 and 12-14 are objected to due to the recitation of “a lycopene content”; claims 8-11 are objected to due to the recitations of “a content of the nitrogen” instead of a “the nitrogen content” and “a total mass” instead of “the total mass”; claims 12 and 14 are objected to due to the recitations of “an arginine content” instead of “the arginine content”; and claims 13-14 are objected to due to the recitation of “a proline content” instead of “the proline content”.
For the purpose of syntactical clarity, it is recommended the recitation of “is 12mg/100g or more and less than 30mg/100g” in claims 12-14 be amended to “is between 12mg/100g and 30mg/100g”.
For the purpose of syntactical clarity, it is recommended the recitation of “is 10mg/100g or more and less than 300mg/100g” in claims 12and 14 be amended to “is between 10mg/100g and 300mg/100g”.
For the purpose of syntactical clarity, it is recommended the recitation of “is 10mg/100g or more and less than 100mg/100g” in claims 13-14 be amended to “is between 10mg/100g and 100mg/100g”.
Dependent claims are included. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
7. 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.
8. Claims 4-14 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 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is intended and/or encompassed by the recitation of “a period at least from a time point of beginning of flowering of a second fruit cluster to before pinching.” While it appears that Applicant intends to recite a time period during which the recited cultivation must occur, the boundaries of this time period are unclear largely due to the recitation of “a period at least from a time point of beginning”. It is unclear if a period “at least from” a time point begins before or after said time point. Further, does not appear to follow standard English grammatical and syntactical practices. The recitation of “a period at least from a time point of beginning” the recitation contains several grammatical, syntactical, and/or typographical errors that obscure the intended recitation. For example, it appears the article “the” should be inserted before “beginning”. It is unclear what is intended by the recitation of “pinching” as this is not an art-recognized stage of tomato plant growth and Applicant has provided no definition for the term. However, “pinching”, as recognized in the art, refers to the removal of fruit, leaves, and/or stems from a plant (Abstract; p. 02, “How many fruit clusters”; p. 03, “In case of disease”; Chen JT, Lal G. International Cooperators' Guide. World Vegetable Center; 1999 (U)). Accordingly, the Office interprets “pinching” to comprise a process in which fruit, leaves, and/or stems are removed from a plant. Thus, the claim seems to recite that the end of the recited time period occurs prior to the removal of fruit, leaves, and/or stems from the plant. However, this does not encompass any specific time period or stage of tomato plant growth because one may remove and/or “pinch” leaves and/or stems from a plant at any stage of growth after the appearance of said leaves and/or stems. To summarize the elements that render claim 4 indefinite: 1) there are several grammatical and/or syntactical errors within the recitation of “a period at least from a time point of beginning of flowering of a second fruit cluster to before pinching”; 2) it is unclear if the recited time period encompasses periods occurring prior to the beginning of the flowering of a second fruit cluster and/or periods occurring after the beginning of the flowering of a second fruit cluster; 3) “pinching” is not an art-recognized stage of tomato plant growth. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the recitation of “a period at least from a time point of beginning of flowering of a second fruit cluster to before pinching” is herein interpreted to encompass any time period after the beginning of the flowering of a second fruit cluster. However, Applicant is required to clarify the intended recitation through amendments and/or arguments to overcome this rejection.
The metes and bounds of claims 6-7 are undefined because it is unclear from where the “tomato” in ln. 2 is harvested. Neither of claims 4 nor 5 recite any harvesting step, cultivation does not require harvesting, and the specification does not provide a definition for cultivation that includes harvesting.
Dependent claims are included. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 4-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Islam et al., Bragantia. 2018 Apr 23;77(2):385-93 (V)) in view of Wang et al. (Frontiers in Nutrition. 2022; 9:833723 (W)).
Claim 4 is indefinite for the reasons discussed above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 4 is herein interpreted to recite a cultivation method for a tomato plant body, comprising cultivating a tomato plant body by irradiation with artificial light in a temperature environment of lower than 30°C, and wherein the cultivation is performed by using a nutrient solution containing sodium chloride in a period beginning after the flowering of a second fruit cluster. Applicant’s must clarify the intended recitation to overcome the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 4, Islam teaches a cultivation method for a tomato plant body, comprising cultivating a tomato plant body by irradiation with artificial light in a temperature environment of lower than 30°C, and wherein the cultivation is performed with a hydroponic technique in a greenhouse by using a nutrient solution containing sodium chloride before the removal of light red maturity stage tomatoes from the third to seventh trusses of the treated tomato plant body (p. 386, “Materials and Methods”, first paragraph). The Office notes that tomato plant trusses comprise fruit clusters; thus, Islam recites a method in which tomato plants are treated and harvested after the formation of the third through seventh fruit clusters. Accordingly, Islam teaches treating and harvesting from the tomato plant after the beginning of flowering of the second fruit cluster.
Islam is silent regarding artificial light.
However, the use of artificial light in growing crops in a greenhouse is routine in the arts. For example, Wang discloses the use of artificial lighting regulate the content of primary and secondary metabolites including vitamin C, organic acids, amino acids, carotenoids, phenolic acids, sugars, flavonoids, and aromatic substances in tomato fruits (Abstract; Figures 2-7).
Accordingly, the combination of Islam and Wang renders obvious a cultivation method for a tomato plant body, comprising cultivating a tomato plant body by irradiation with artificial light in a temperature environment of lower than 30°C, and wherein the cultivation is performed by using a nutrient solution containing sodium chloride in a period beginning after the flowering of a second fruit cluster.
The level of ordinary skill in the plant biology and cultivation arts is high as evidenced by both Islam and Wang. It would have been prima facie obvious to grow a tomato plant in a greenhouse as described by Islam under artificial light as described by Wang. Though Islam does not specifically recite artificial light, the claims do not require the plant body be grown exclusively under artificial light, greenhouses comprise artificial lighting, and the growth of tomato plants, including the control of light, temperature, and humidity during said growth is routine in the arts. Furthermore, Wang teaches significant benefits, such as increased carotenoid and amino acid content in tomato plants grown with supplemental artificial light. Given such teaching and the global nutritional and economic importance of tomatoes, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated and informed as to how to employ artificial lighting to improve the growth of a tomato plant. Accordingly, this limitation is found obvious in view of the teachings of Islam, further in view of the teachings of Wang, and further in view of the and the abilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Islam teaches wherein the sodium chloride content with respect to the total mass of the nutrient solution is 0.01% by mass to 1% by mass (p. 386, “Materials and Methods”, first paragraph). A 4.23 mM solution of sodium chloride corresponds to a 0.0247% w/v solution. Therefore, Islam teaches wherein the the sodium chloride content with respect to the total mass of the nutrient solution is 0.0247% of the nutrient solution.
Regarding claims 6-7, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Islam teaches wherein a lycopene content in a tomato harvested is 12mg/100g or more (p. 390, Table 4).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Islam teaches wherein a lycopene content in a tomato harvested is 12mg/100g or more and less than 30mg/100g. Islam is silent regarding the arginine content of said tomato.
However, Wang teaches wherein the arginine content in a tomato harvested is 10mg/100g or more and less than 100mg/100g and wherein the arginine content can be modulated by controlling the amount and/or timing of artificial lighting (p. 05, “Amino Acid Contents”; Supplementary Table 4).
11. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Islam et al., Bragantia. 2018 Apr 23;77(2):385-93 (V)) in view of Wang et al. (Frontiers in Nutrition. 2022; 9:833723 (W)), and further in view of Urbanczyk-Wochniak and Fernie (Journal of Experimental Botany. 2005; 56(410): 309–321 (X)).
Regarding claims 8-11, the teachings of Islam and Wang are as discussed above. Islam is silent regarding the nitrogen content of the recited nutrient solution.
However, Urbanczyk-Wochniak teaches the hydroponic cultivation of tomatoes wherein the cultivation is performed by using a nutrient solution that does not contain nitrogen or that contains nitrogen and has nitrogen content of 1% by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the nutrient solution (Abstract). The Office notes that both the “replete” and “deficient” nitrate regimes disclosed by Urbanczyk-Wochniak comprise less that 1% by mass of nitrogen with regard to the total mass of the nutrient solution.
The combination of Islam, Wang, and Urbanczyk-Wochniak renders obvious a nutrient solution comprising 1% or less of nitrogen by mass.
The level of ordinary skill in the plant biotechnology and crop cultivation arts is high as evidenced by Islam, Wang, and Urbanczyk-Wochniak. It would have been prima facie obvious to use a nutrient solution comprising low nitrogen contents, including solutions lacking nitrogen or comprising less than 1% of nitrogen relative to the total mass of the solution for several reasons. First, the development, use, and optimization of hydroponic growth media is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the arts as stated on p. 03, points 6-8 of the Extended European Search Report (dated April 2, 2026 and issued in corresponding EP Patent Application No. 24760249.3 (Applicant’s IDS)) submitted by Applicant. Second, both Islam and Urbanczyk-Wochniak teach that cultivated plants under different nutrient solutions results in different impacts on plant growth; one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly be motivated to grow the plants using a variety of nutrient solutions to produce plants and/or fruits with distinct features including altered firmness, sweetness, coloration, and other traits as discussed by Islam.
12. Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Islam et al., Bragantia. 2018 Apr 23;77(2):385-93 (V)) in view of Wang et al. (Frontiers in Nutrition. 2022; 9:833723 (W)), and further in view of by Parveen et al. (Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2019; 8(5): 227-255 (Y)).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Islam teaches wherein a lycopene content in a tomato harvested is 12mg/100g or more and less than 30mg/100g (p. 390, Table 4). Islam is silent regarding the proline content of the harvested tomato. However, the claims are not limited to any particular species or variety of tomato plant and, therefore, encompass any and all varieties of tomato plants.
Wang teaches wherein the proline content of a harvested tomato can be increased by growing the plant under artificial lighting.
Furthermore, Parveen teaches several tomato genotypes comprising between 10mg/100g and 300mg/100g of proline (p. 239, Table 5) and that higher proline content allows plants to better survive stress conditions (p. 247, right column, first and second full paragraphs). The Office notes that when converted from umol/g to mg/100g, the Azad T-5, Swaran Naveen, and WIR-4360 tomato genotypes comprise between 10mg/100g and 300mg/100g of proline under standard growth conditions; the Azad T-5, Kashi Sharad, Hisar Arun, Swaran Naveen, WIR-4360, C-26-1, and F-7028 tomato genotypes comprise between 10mg/100g and 300mg/100g of proline under standard growth conditions.
The combination of Islam, Wang, and Parveen renders obvious a cultivation method in which the proline content of a tomato plant from said method is between 10mg/100g and 300mg/100g.
The level of ordinary skill in the plant biotechnology and crop cultivation arts is high as evidenced by Islam, Wang, and Parveen. It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the tomato plants and cultivation methods disclosed by Islam and Wang with the tomato plants and cultivation methods taught by Parveen to produce a tomato plant wherein a lycopene content in a tomato harvested is 12mg/100g or more and less than 30mg/100g and a proline content in a tomato harvested is 10mg/100g or more and less than 300mg/100g. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Parveen teaches that tomatoes with increased proline content have increased tolerance to stress conditions. Furthermore, the claims are not limited to any particular species of tomato and the selection of a tomato variety comprising known starting characteristics is trivial and routine in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, the teachings discussed above of Islam, Wang, and Parveen are as discussed above. Islam is silent to the arginine content of the harvested tomato.
However, Wang teaches wherein the arginine content in a tomato harvested is 10mg/100g or more and less than 100mg/100g (p. 05, “Amino Acid Contents”; Supplementary Table 4).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and without any surprising or unexpected results.
Conclusion
13. No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEQUANTARIUS J SPEED whose telephone number is (703)756-4779. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9AM-5PM 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, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (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.
/DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights