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 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(s) 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoki (JP 6405260 B2, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 11/27/2025) in view of Masayuki (JP-2003116383-A) and Kudo (WO-2011007868-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Naoki discloses a cultivation method for a fruit vegetable plant, comprising:
a cultivation step of cultivating a fruit vegetable plant by using a hydroponic method (see pages 1 and 14),
wherein in a part of a cultivation period in a state where a fruit vegetable plant body has fruit clusters and leaves, a nutrient solution having a lower nitrogen concentration is used (lower nitrogen concentration nutrient solution used during early stage of fruit enlargement, see page 2),
wherein, in a case where a cultivation period in which the nutrient solution having a reduced nitrogen concentration used is defined as a second cultivation period (lower nitrogen concentration in solution during early fruit enlargement, see page 2), and a cultivation period before the nutrient solution having a reduced nitrogen concentration is defined as a first cultivation period (from planting to before fruit enlargement, see pages 2-3), a phosphorus concentration of the nutrient solution used in the second cultivation period is 1.4 times or more a phosphorus concentration of a nutrient solution used in the first cultivation period (phosphorus in planting to fruit enlargement, i.e. first period, is 3-10me/L, with 0.2L/strain, and therefore 0.6-1.6me/strain, and the concentration during fruiting to fruit enlargement, i.e. second period, is 2-2.3me/strain, see pages 5 and 7).
Naoki fails to disclose irradiating the plant with artificial light, where a fruit vegetable plant body has two or more levels of flower clusters or fruit clusters and has two or more leaves with respect to one flower cluster or one fruit cluster, and the nitrogen concentration being 10 ppm by mass or less.
Kudo teaches irradiating the plant with artificial light (led for illuminating plants, see page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the plant cultivation method with the artificial light of Kudo with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant receives optimal lighting conditions for growth regardless of environmental conditions.
Masayuki teaches where a fruit vegetable plant body has two or more levels of flower clusters or fruit clusters and has two or more leaves with respect to one flower cluster or one fruit cluster (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the time of fertilizing being when the fruit vegetable body has the fruit or flower clusters of Masayuki with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the flowers and fruit receive increased nutrients for growth and improved fruit, rather than promoting tall shoot growth.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention, except wherein the nitrogen concentration used is 10 ppm by mass or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method with the nitrogen concentration being 10ppm by mass or less with a reasonable expectation of success as reduced nitrogen concentration during early fruiting is known to provide sweeter crops and curb excessive vegetative growth and 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 2, the modified reference teaches the cultivation method for a fruit vegetable plant according to claim 1, and Naoki further discloses wherein the start of the reduced nitrogen solution use is started before or after pinching (reduced nitrogen solution used during fruit enlargement, first pinching done at fruit enlargement stage, see pages 3 and 8-10).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention, except wherein the nitrogen concentration used is 10 ppm by mass or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method with the nitrogen concentration being 10ppm by mass or less with a reasonable expectation of success as reduced nitrogen concentration during early fruiting is known to provide sweeter crops and curb excessive vegetative growth and 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).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention, except wherein the start of the nitrogen solution occurs at any time point between 3 days before and 7 days after pinching of the fruit vegetable plant body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method with the nitrogen solution occurring at any time point between 3 days before and 7 days after pinching of the fruit vegetable plant body as this will ensure the nutrients are taken up by the flowers and fruit to increase growth and improve fruit composition, and since it has been held that discovering an since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the cultivation method for a fruit vegetable plant according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the pinching of the fruit vegetable plant body is performed after flower clusters are formed at three to five levels of the fruit vegetable plant body.
Masayuki teaches wherein the pinching of the fruit vegetable plant body is performed after flower clusters are formed at three to five levels of the fruit vegetable plant body (see fig 1 and page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the pinching at cluster levels of Masayuki with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure enough flower and fruit clusters remain on the plant such that there is an adequate harvest, while providing more nutrients to each specific fruit, improving taste and composition.
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the cultivation method for a fruit vegetable plant according to claim 1, and Naoki further discloses wherein the fruit vegetable plant is a Solanaceae plant or a Cucurbitaceae plant (tomato plant, see page 3).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the cultivation method for a fruit vegetable plant according to claim 1, and Naoki further discloses wherein the fruit vegetable plant is a tomato (tomato plant, see page 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach amended claim 1. The Office respectfully disagrees.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over Masayuki, the Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the primary reference, Naoki, discloses cultivation periods in regards to flowering and fruiting, and therefore discloses a cultivation period in which the fruit vegetable plant body has fruit and or flower clusters. Masayuki teaches multiple levels of clusters of leaves and buds (4) as seen in 1, which was included in Applicant’s arguments. This combination therefore teaches a cultivation period involving multiple levels of flower or fruit and leaf clusters, as the primary discloses a cultivation period for fruiting plants, and Masayuki clearly shows levels of clusters of leaves with flower buds.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments against the phosphorus concentration ratio, the Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the phosphorus taught in Naoki is an absolute comparison whereas the phosphorus of the claimed invention is a concentration ratio. However, the phosphorus in the Naoki reference is discussed as component of the chemical fertilizer, and therefore is also a concentration ratio. Applicant does not further elaborate on the differences between the units of Naoki versus the claimed invention.
Applicant also argues that the Naoki reference does not teach changing the phosphorus concentration, and therefore that then it would not be obvious to use a lower nitrogen concentration as lowered nitrogen reduces yield. The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Naoki does indeed discuss differing phosphorus concentrations for before fruit enlargement vs during fruit enlargement. Specifically, page 5 discusses the upper and lower limits of the phosphorus for before the fruit enlargement period (i.e. the first period), which were converted to me/strain in the rejection of amended claim 1. Page 7 of Naoki discusses the lower and upper limits of phosphorous for the fruiting period (i.e. the second period), which are 2.0-2.3 me/strain. The values of the phosphorus of the second period are indeed 1.4 or more times those of the first period. While another embodiment of Naoki does suggest keeping the phosphorus concentration the same during both periods (as stated by Applicant), that does not constitute teaching away, as Naoki also includes the differing phosphorus values. A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 47 USPQ 1516, 1522-23. The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also MPEP § 2123.
In regards to Applicant’s second point – that then it would not be obvious to use a lower nitrogen concentration as lowered nitrogen reduces yield, the Office respectfully disagrees. As previously mentioned, Naoki does discuss increased phosphorus values for the second cultivation period, which is well known for increasing fruit yield. Additionally, the nitrogen in Naoki is not used for affecting fruit yield but to increase fruit sweetness, which is demonstrated by the English translation of tables 1 and 2 of Naoki as provided by Applicant. The decreased nitrogen values do indeed increase sweetness of the fruit, and the teachings of Naoki of increased phosphorus values during the second cultivation period would help offset any reductions in plant yield due to the reduced nitrogen.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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 at (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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights