DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (America Invents Act). As a result, Applicant is encouraged to review the AIA in the MPEP. Applicant should also note that the wording, requirements, and statutes may have some subtle changes from actions and requirements prior to AIA .
Claims Pending
Claims 1-8 are pending and will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: Claim 8 as written is drawn to an “Application”, which does not clearly fall within one of the categories of invention: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. “Application” does not clearly fall within the category of “process”, as the claim does not recite process steps explaining how the medium is applied to the propagation of E. henryi. It is suggested that the claim be re-written to be clearly drawn to a method of propagating E. henryi, with steps clearly specifying how the culture medium combination is applied.
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 8 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 8 is indefinite, because it does not make clear how the culture medium combination is being applied to the propagation of E. henryi. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for “the propagation of Emmenopterys henryi”.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9 April 2026 have been approved.
Foreign Priority
In the Application Data Sheet filed 9 April 2026 Foreign priority is claimed referencing Chinese application number 202510295475.6 filed 13 March 2025. However, no translated foreign priority document has been filed. Priority is not granted.
Information Disclosure Statements
The listed and cited references in the specification, are not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been fully considered.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qingrong et al. (For the culture medium of European pear tissue-cultured seedling, cultural method and its application, Chinese patent CN110476806A (2019)), in view of Murashige and Skoog, (“A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bio Assays with Tobacco Tissue Cultures”, Physiologia Plantarum, vol. 15, 1962.), referred to hereafter as MS1962, and further in view of Zhang et al., (Micropropagation via multiple shoot induction in Emmenopterys henryi Oliv., Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 84(6), 366-372 (2019)) referred to hereafter as Zhang.
Applicants’ claims are broadly drawn to a method of propagating Emmenopterys henryi (referred to hereafter as EH).
Wherein the EH material is derived from culturing buds of a cleaned EH seedling stem in initiation medium to obtain a sterile seedling. Wherein the initiation media contains MS media with 2.0 mg/L 6-BA, 2.0 mg/L kinetin (KT), and 0.1 mg/L NAA. (initiation media defined in claims 2 and 7)
Taking leaves of the cleaned seedling and inducing differentiation of the leaves on a differentiation medium to produce adventitious buds. Wherein the differentiation media is wherein the differentiation medium is Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium containing 1.0 mg/L 6-benzylaminopurine (6-BA), 0.1 mg/L 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA), and 0.01 mg/L thidiazuron (TDZ) (differentiation media defined in claims 1 and 7).
Subjecting the adventitious buds to proliferation media to produce more adventitious buds. wherein the proliferation medium is MS medium containing 3.0 mg/L 6-BA and 0.1 mg/L IBA (proliferation media defined in claims 3 and 7).
Removing leaves from the adventitious buds and keeping only the terminal buds (claim 4).
Culturing the proliferated adventitious buds in elongation media to produce elongated adventitious buds. Wherein the elongation medium is MS medium containing 3.0 mg/L 6-BA, 0.1 mg/L indole-3-butyric acid (IBA), and 0.1 mg/L gibberellic acid (GA₃) (Proliferation media defined in claims 1 and 7).
Subjecting the elongated adventitious buds to rooting media to produce tissue culture plantlets. The method according to claim 1, wherein the rooting medium is 1/2 MS medium containing 1.0 mg/L IBA (rooting medium defined in claims 5 and 7).
Transplanting the tissue culture plantlets into a mixed substrate. wherein the mixed substrate is composed of peat soil, substrate soil, and vermiculite, wherein a mass ratio is 3:3:1 respectively (mixed substrate defined in claim 6).
The limitations of claims 7-8 are broadly the same as the culmination of the prior claims, however, lack the mixed substrate (potting soil) limitation of claims 1 and 6. The limitations of claims 7-8 are broader than the limitations of claims 1-6.
Regarding the initiation media of claims 1, 2, and 7 Qingrong teaches a method of micropropagation of a dicotyledonous woody plant (European pear) wherein young stems with buds are collected from the field, cleaned, and initiated on a primary medium based on MS1962 medium containing 0.5-2 mg/l BA (“Experimental result” section in bullet 2). (reads on initiation media and contents in Claims 1, 2, and 7).
Qingrong does not teach that 2 mg/l Kinetin or 0.1 mg/l NAA are in the initiation media (claims 2 and7). However, MS1962 teaches on page 475 that 0.04 or 0.2 mg/l kinetin is standard in MS1962 media. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art that the concentration of kinetin could be adjusted to establish an optimal range, furthermore there is no evidence that the concentration of 2 mg/l of kinetin is critical in the invention as claimed. Additionally, MS1962 teaches “Napthaleneacetic and… acids have been tested as substitutes for IAA…they were preferable if not essential for growth. Levels of .05 to 0.2 mg/l. have been satisfactory for growth of callus. These substances are so much stronger or longer lasting auxins than IAA, that all but extremely low concentrations prevented bud formation” (page 489 first full paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art that 0.05 to 0.2 mg/l would be an effective auxin in an MS1962 based intiation media.
Regarding the differentiation, proliferation, and elongation media of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7.
Qingrong teaches proliferation medium based on MS1962 containing 0.5-7.5mg BA, 0.05-0.3 mg/l NAA, 0.05-0.3 mg/l IBA , 0.02-0.5mg/l TDZ, and 0.05-0.5 mg/l KT. In the “Experimental result” section in bullet 2 “the proliferation of test tube seedling is grown” Qingrong states “…shows as existing good proliferation growth has good elongation growth, Miao Lv again, and miaoye stretches larger, robust seedling…” ((Miao lv: Literally “seedling green,” a term used in Chinese agricultural and horticultural contexts to describe the vibrant green of young plants) (Miaoye: “Seedling leaves,” the foliage of a young plant, which is the primary site of photosynthesis)) this teaching reads on the differentiation, proliferation and elongation media claimed as there is differentiation and elongation occurring in the proliferation media taught.
Regarding the rooting media of claims 1, 5, and 7.
Qingrong teaches a rooting media based on ½ strength MS1962 media containing 0.5-1.5mg/l IBA. (“Experimental result” section in bullet 2 “the green seedling rooting induction of 3 test tubes” section).
Qingrong does not teach that the elongation media contains the 0.1mg/l gibberellic acid in the elongation media of claims 1 and 7. However, MS1962 teaches on page 492-493 that “cold-sterilized gibberellic acid markedly increased the growth rate… IAA together with kinetin permitted continuous growth of the tissue and the rate of this callus development was speeded greatly by the further addition of gibberellic acid.” it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to add 0.1-100 mg/l of gibberellic acid to the MS1962 media because MS1962 teaches that gibberellic acid increases the rate of callus development, MS1962 Table 9 shows that at all concentrations, that is 0.1 mg/l to 100 mg/l, the addition of gibberellic acid produced an improvement in fresh and dry weight over not utilizing gibberellic acid (MS1962 page 492-493).
Qingrong does not teach that plants produced by their method are put into a mixed substrate composed of a 3:3:1 mix of peat soil, substrate soil, and vermiculite.
Qingrong does not teach that their media or method is used for micro propagation of Emmenopterys henryi.
Qingrong teaches that their media and method was effective in micro propagating woody dicotyledonous trees.
Zhang teaches a method and media for Emmenopterys henryi micropropagation (whole document). Zhang teaches embodiments of the media wherein the basal media is WPM (woody plant media) with different concentrations of growth regulators including BA, IBA, NAA, and KT (Materials and Methods).
It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the methods of Qingrong with the methods of Zhang such that EH would be micro propagated using the culture media of Qingrong. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because both prior art references teach methods of micro propagation of dicotyledonous trees utilizing similar culture media and growth regulator manipulations.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches transplanting rooted plantlets to a 2:1 peat soil: perlite mix (Materials and Methods). This reads on the 3:3:1 peat soil: substrate soil: Vermiculite of claim 6. It would be obvious to a person of skill in the art that most garden variety soil mixes would provide an adequate growth substrate for a seedling produced by the claimed method. Because plants generally grow in soil and here Zhang shows that the actual soil component is not required for EH seedling survival after transplantation, Zhang’s soil mix consists of only peat/compost and perlite, no actual soil is required.
Moreover, by the teachings of the cited references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the methods and components as taught in the cited references as methods of micro propagating woody plants and Emmenopterys henyri are commonly known in the art and media well suited for doing such are also well known in the art.
Regarding claim 8: the media as encompassed by instant claim 7 is applied in a method in which E. henryi is propagated, as discussed above.
Thus, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Summary
No claim is allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Zachariah Kay whose telephone number is (703)756-4771,
reachable hours: Pacific time Monday-Wednesday & Friday 0900-1230 & 1430-1830, Thursday 0830-1630.
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.
/ZACHARIAH ALLAN KAY/Examiner, Art Unit 1661
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
