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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 May 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While 6 square inches (in ¶0012), and 9-25 square inches (in ¶0022), are supported in the originally filed specification, the remainder of the claimed range [7, 8, 26-80 square inches] is not.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12-17, 19, & 20 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.
For claim 1: in the last line of the first page of the claim, “the flat turf repair module pod” (emphasis added) lacks antecedent basis, and the term “module” should be removed.
For claims 2-9, 19, & 20, each preamble recited “The [flat] turf repair pod of claim…”; however, each independent claim now lays out the scope of the device with the preamble “article of manufacture”. Thus, the scope of each dependent claim is unclear.
For claim 12, each iteration of “similar” fails to provide a reference point to which the element is similar, and the degree to which the element is similar to another implied element. It is unclear what specific structural limitations are required to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claims. Claims 13-17 are rejected as dependent from claim 12, rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 20110173879 A1) in view of Legal, Jr. (US Patent 3316676), McClellan (“Practice Like a Pro,” article published 2011) and Feaux de Lacroix (DE 202013007304-U1).
Regarding claim 1, Bell teaches an article of manufacture (as outlined in the claim body below), comprising:
a flat turf repair pod (the packet 100 shown in Figs. 1-3 is apparently flat on all sides) having a vertical thickness (the two short dimension of Figs. 1 & 3), and a horizontal surface area (the face shown in Fig. 2), the flat turf repair pod comprising:
a granular material (seeds 106; Fig. 1) distributed through a medium (soil 104; Fig. 1), wherein the granular material includes at least one ingredient selected from the group consisting of1:
grass seeds (seeds 106; Page 1, para [0004]),
natural fertilizer,
black gypsum,
humic acid, and
calcium; and
a water-disruptable covering (film 110; Fig. 1) surrounding the medium (soil 104; Fig. 1) and the granular material (seeds 106), said water-disruptable covering (film 110) effective to prevent the medium (soil 104) from expanding the flat turf repair pod over the extended horizontal surface area (see Fig. 3, wherein packet 100 has a horizontal surface area at its topmost surface (near where “110” is pointing to)) until the water-disruptable covering (film 110) is breached in the presence of water (film 110 is dissolvable upon contact with water; ¶0004).
Bell is silent to the thickness being in a range of one quarter to one inch,
the horizontal surface area being in a range of six to eight square inches,
a water-activated volume expander that will expand the flat turf repair pod over an extended horizontal surface area that is larger than the horizontal surface area of the flat turf repair pod when activated in the presence of water;
the granular material distributed through the water-activated volume expander so that grains of the granular material will move away from each other in a horizontal direction when the water-activated volume expander is activated in the presence of water and thereby further distribute the granular material over the extended horizontal surface area that is larger than the horizontal surface area of the flat turf repair module pod; and
said water-disruptable covering effective to prevent the water-activated volume expander from expanding and thereby further distribute the granular material over a larger horizontal surface area until the water-disruptable cover is breached in the presence of water.
Legal, Jr. teaches seed packages with a thickness of between 1/4” to 1” (Col. 5, lines 25-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the thickness of the repair pod of the above-modified reference, to be between 1/4” to 1”, as taught by Legal, Jr., since this is a size that is portable in one hand which makes it easy to use, as recognized by Bell (Page 3, ¶0033). Additionally, such a change in size would have been further obvious in order to provide sufficient growth medium while also efficiently providing each seed and subsequent plant access to sunlight, and 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.
McClellan teaches a golf analysis technique, relevant due to its discussion of divots. Page 2 of the attached article states “the average iron shot is believed to remove a divot 3 inches wide by 6.5 inches long for a total of 19.5 square inches.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the horizontal surface area of Bell with at least 19.5 square inches as taught by McClellan in order to sufficiently fill a typical divot size.
Feaux de Lacroix teaches a turf repair device (Abstract) comprising: a water-activated volume expander that will expand weight when activated in the presence of water (compressed coconut fiber (coir) expands; Abstract; Page 3, lines 8-9 and lines 15-18).
Note, in the combination of Bell and Feaux de Lacroix the compressed coconut fibers of Feaux de Lacroix replaces the soil (104) of Bell and thus teaches that grains of the granular material (Bell — seeds 106) move away from each other if the volume expander (Feaux de Lacroix — compressed coconut fibers) is activated in the presence of water (Bell – water-soluble film 110 dissolves in water) and further distribute the granular material (Bell – seeds 106) over a larger horizontal surface area than the horizontal surface area of the pod (Bell - see topmost horizontal surface area of pod 100 in Fig. 3); and said water-disruptable covering effective to prevent the water-activated volume expander from expanding (film 110 (Bell) prevents the coir (Lacroix) from expanding) and thereby further distribute the granular material over the extended larger horizontal surface area that is larger than the horizontal surface area of the flat turf repair pod until the water-disruptable cover is breached in the presence of water (if the pod 100 (Bell) is placed in a sideways orientation, such as seen in Fig. 3 (Bell), the coir (Lacroix) will expand in a horizontal direction to thereby further distribute the seeds 106 (Bell) over a larger horizontal surface area, since the coir increases to at least three times in thickness in water (Lacroix - Page 3, lines 8-9 and lines 15-18), until the film 110 (Bell) is breached in the presence of water (film 110 dissolves in water (Bell)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the compressed coconut fibers, as taught by Feaux de Lacroix, in the repair pod of Bell, since cocopeat is a strong, lightweight and easy-to handle product that has very good water absorption and retention properties, very good air-filled porosity, and supports turf germination and turf growth in a protective and nourishing way, as recognized by Feaux de Lacroix (Page 3, lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 3, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 1, and Feaux de Lacroix further teaches wherein the water-activated volume expander is compressed coir (compressed coconut fibers; Page 3, lines 8-9 and 15-18).
Regarding claim 4, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 1, and Feaux de Lacroix further teaches the water-activated volume expander (compressed coconut fibers; Page 4, lines 17-18) absorbs at least five (5) times its weight in water (the water holding capacity is at least 300 wt.% based on the dry cocopeat; Page 3, line 11 from the bottom of the page).
Regarding claim 5, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 1, and Bell further teaches the water-disruptable covering is water-soluble film (film is polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH); Page 1, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 6, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 5, and Bell further teaches the water-soluble film (film is polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH); Page 1, ¶0004) but does not teach the water-soluble film has pores or perforations.
Legal, Jr. teaches a water-soluble film has pores or perforations (Col. 2, lines 62-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the PVOH film of the repair pod of the above-modified reference with perforations, as taught by Legal, Jr., depending on a user’s preference and to reduce the amount of moisture required to activate the repair pod, as recognized by Legal, Jr. (Col. 2, lines 62-63) and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Legal, McClellan, and Feaux de Lacroix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krabbendam (EP 3295787).
Regarding claim 2, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising: an effective quantity of an alkaline buffer to neutralize an acid present at a turf surface.
Krabbendam teaches using an effective quantity of an alkaline buffer to neutralize an acid present at a turf surface (alkaline solution based on MgCO3 can be applied to lawn or turf areas to correct acidic conditions; Page 2, ¶¶0007, 11, 12, & 14; Page 3, claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the repair pod of the above-modified reference with an alkaline buffer, as taught by Krabbendam, since application of the buffer will help improve the appearance of laws or turf, as recognized by Krabbendam (Page 2, ¶0007 & 0010).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Legal, McClellan, and Feaux de Lacroix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crivello (US PGPUB 20120186147).
Regarding claim 7, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 1, and Bell further teaches the water-disruptable covering (film 110) but does not teach a water-soluble paper.
Crivello teaches a water-disruptable covering is water-soluble paper (water-soluble paper; Page 2, para [0016]).
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 provide the covering of the repair pod, the above-modified reference with a water-soluble paper, as taught by Crivello, to since it is quick dissolving and biodegradable, as recognized by Crivello (Page 2, ¶[0016).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Legal, McClellan, and Feaux de Lacroix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kraus (US Patent 11032968).
Regarding claim 8, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 1, and Bell further teaches wherein the water-disruptable covering (film 110) contains turf repair material (Abstract) but does not teach at least 10cc of repair material and less than 60cc of repair material.
Kraus teaches at least 10cc of repair material and less than 60cc of repair material (seed delivery device contains a volume of between 0.13mlI to 28ml (= .13cc to 60cc); Col. 4, lines 14-19).
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 provide the turf repair material of the repair pod, of the above-modified reference with a volume of between 10cc to 60cc, as taught by Kraus, since this is within a range of standard sized capsules and also the volume may be determined per a user’s preference, as recognized by Kraus (Col. 4, lines 14-19).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Legal, McClellan, Feaux de Lacroix, and Crivello as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kraus.
Regarding claim 9, the above-modified reference teaches the flat turf repair pod of claim 7, and Bell further teaches the water-disruptable covering (film 110) but does not teach the covering contains about 37cc of turf repair material.
Kraus teaches a seed delivery device (Abstract) wherein the water-disruptable covering (container 12, 14; Fig. 2) contains about 37cc of turf repair material (Kraus — volume is between 0.13ml to 28ml (= .13cc to 60cc), which includes 37cc; Col. 4, lines 14-19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the repair pod of the above-modified reference, with a volume of about 37cc of material, as taught by Kraus, to the turf repair material of since this is within a range of standard sized capsules and also the volume may be determined per a user’s preference, as recognized by Kraus (Col. 4, lines 14-19).
Claims 12 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Feaux de Lacroix and Tukacs (US Patent 3900963).
Regarding claim 12, Bell teaches a method of manufacturing a plurality of flat soil-amendment pods each having a similar vertical thickness, and a similar horizontal surface area comprising a similar length and width that is a multiple of the vertical thickness (the provision of each pod of the embodiment of Figs. 1-3 represents a repetitious cycle or recipe), the method comprising:
mixing a plurality of materials including a medium and a granular material distributed through the medium, wherein the granular material includes at least one ingredient selected from the group consisting of2 plant seeds, natural fertilizer, black gypsum, humic acid, and calcium, to form a dry, granulated mixture (soil and plant seeds are mixed; Page 3, claim 15);
encapsulating the dry, granulated mixture within a water-disruptable covering to form each soil-amendment pod (mixture of soil and seeds are sealed into a packet of water-soluble film to form a turf repair pod; Page 3, claim 15; Abstract).
Bell does not teach the medium being a water-activated volume expander that will expand each flat soil-amendment pod over an extended horizontal surface area that is larger than the horizontal surface area of each flat soil-amendment pod when activated in the presence of water, so that grains of the granular material will move away from each other in a horizontal direction when the water-activated volume expander is activated in the presence of water and thereby further distribute the granular material over the extended horizontal surface area that is larger than the horizontal surface area of each flat soil-amendment pod, and
packing in a moisture-resistant container.
Feaux de Lacroix teaches a turf repair device (Abstract) comprising: a water-activated volume expander (coir) that will expand each flat soil-amendment pod over an extended horizontal surface area that is larger than the horizontal surface area of each flat soil-amendment pod when activated in the presence of water (compressed coconut fiber (coir) expands to at least three times after addition of water; Abstract; Page 3, lines 8-9 and lines 15-18).
Note, the combination of Bell and Feaux de Lacroix teaches a water-activated volume expander (Lacroix – coir) that will expand and seeds 106 (Bell) will further distribute over a larger horizontal surface area than a horizontal surface area of a soil-amendment pod (Bell – see the topmost horizonal surface area of pod 100 in Fig. 3 (near where 110 is indicated)), since the coir increases in volume in water (Lacroix – Page 3, lines 8-9 and lines 15-18), until the film 110 (Bell) is breached in the presence of water (film 110 dissolves in water (Bell)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the repair pod of Bell, with the compressed coconut fibers, as taught by Feaux de Lacroix, since cocopeat is a strong, lightweight and easy-to handle product that has very good water absorption and retention properties, very good air-filled porosity, and supports turf germination and turf growth in a protective and nourishing way, as recognized by Feaux de Lacroix (Page 3, lines 15-18).
Tukacs teaches packing seed carriers (Abstract) in a moisture-resistant container (water-proof container or bag; Col. 6, lines 38-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the method of the above-modified reference by packing in a water-proof container as taught by Tukacs, since this would prevent the water-disruptable covering of the pods from accidentally becoming wet during storage/transport which would ruin the pods, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the above-modified reference teaches the method of claim 12 and Bell further teaches the at least one ingredient is plant seeds (seeds 106) but does not teach an ingredient selected from the group consisting of natural fertilizer, black gypsum, humic acid, and calcium.
Feaux de Lacroix further teaches the method of making a turf repair device (Abstract) with natural fertilizer (organic fertilizer; Page 2, 3 line from the bottom of the page).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the method of the above-modified reference with a natural fertilizer, as taught by Feaux de Lacroix, since a fertilizer will stimulate grass growth, as recognized by Feaux de Lacroix (Page 4, line 12).
Regarding claim 14, the above-modified reference teaches the method of claim 12, and Bell further teaches wherein the plant seeds are grass seeds (grass seeds; Page 1, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 15, the above-modified reference teaches the method of claim 12, and Bell further teaches wherein the plant seeds are one of flower seeds, wildflower seeds, vegetable seeds, herb seeds or hemp seeds (seeds can be flower seeds, vegetable seeds or other types of seeds; Page 2, ¶0027).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell, Feaux de Lacroix, and Tukacs as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kraus.
Regarding claim 16, the above-modified reference teaches the method of claim 12, and Bell further teaches each soil-amendment pod contains the dry granulated mixture (mixture of soil and seeds are sealed into a packet of water-soluble film to form a turf repair pod; Page 3, claim 15; Abstract) but does not teach containing between 45cc and 230cc of the dry, granulated mixture.
Kraus teaches a seed delivery device containing between 45cc and 230cc of a mixture (seed delivery device contains a volume of between 0.13ml to 28ml (= .13cc to 60cc); Col. 4, lines 14-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the method of making the repair pod of the above-modified reference, to a size of 0.13cc to 60cc of the dry granulated mixture, as taught by Kraus, since this is within a range of standard sized capsules and also the volume may be determined per a user’s preference, as recognized by Kraus (Col. 4, lines 14-19).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell, Feaux de Lacroix, and Tukacs as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Legal, Jr.
Regarding claim 17, the above-modified reference teaches the method of claim 12, and the resulting device further teaches the soil amendment pod (as outlined above) but does not teach the pod is between 10mm and 25mm thick.
Legal, Jr. teaches seed packages with a thickness of between 1/4” to 1 (Col. 5, lines 25-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the thickness of the repair pod of the above-modified reference, to be between 1/4” to 1”, as taught by Legal, Jr., since this is a size that is portable in one hand which makes it easy to use, as recognized by Bell (Page 3, ¶0033). Additionally, such a change in size would have been further obvious in order to provide sufficient growth medium while also efficiently providing each seed and subsequent plant access to sunlight, and 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Claims 19 & 20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE Applicant’s argument that the packet of Bell is used, and thus limited to, filling in a divot, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Not only is “filling in a brown spot on a lawn” not positively required in any of the claims, it does not overcome the structural analysis of the prior art. The specific thinness of the pods is also not positively claimed in the method of manufacture, and does not sway any discussion there. It is found that the problem solved of the instant invention is not held to the specific problem discussed, but also applies to seeding, germinating, or planting in general. Additionally, the substrates discussed in the instant invention (coconut coir) are well used in hydroponics, amounting to additional analysis in that area of art. It is respectfully noted that the Applicant’s view of the problem solved is overly narrow, and additionally, does not correspond with the claimed subject matter.
RE Applicant arguments that the pod of Bell would not be used in the claimed manner, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to the apparatus claims, claims 1-9, this argument is moot because the intended use of the device does not provide any particulars of the structure which overcomes the prior art of record. With regards to the method claims, claims 12-17, the argument is also moot because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed method of production. (Rather, this argument would be better served with RE a method of use, which is not present in the current claims.)
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art additionally included is related to growing mediums which expand in water or turf repair devices which share similar features to those described in the current application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the Markush grouping.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the Markush grouping.
Prosecution Insights