Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/29/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. New claim 36 was added. Claims 1, 2, 19, 28 and 30-36 are pending.
Applicants’ amendment has necessitated new rejections.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 5/29/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 32 be found allowable, claim 36 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 28, 32 and 34-36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafer (US 4,009,263; patented February 22, 1977) in view of Wang et al. (CN106010558; published October 12, 2016).
Applicant claims a mineral product with a particles size of about 50-70 mesh consisting of cobalt lactate, a metal sulfate, optionally at least one additional mineral chelated compound other than cobalt lactate, optionally a carrier selected from diatomaceous earth, calcium carbonate, limestone, sugar, dextrose, water, ground corn cobs, starch and combinations thereof and optionally one or more of a fiber, yucca extract, an inorganic salt compound, an inorganic oxide compound, an inorganic hydroxide compound or an enzyme, one or more minerals selected from cobalt, zinc, manganese, copper, iron and combinations and salts thereof having a particle size of about 50-70 mesh.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 28, 32 and 34-36 Shafer disclose an animal feed supplement containing cobalt consisting essentially of the reaction product of cobalt carbonate and lactic acid (cobalt lactate) admixed with a diatomaceous earth and sacchariferous substance (abstract). The cobalt is in the form of cobalt lactate and cobalt sulfate (column 1, lines 47-55). The desired product is cobalt lactate with a sacchariferous substance selected from dextrose, sugar and starchy materials derived from corn (column 2, lines 45-51). The preferred mixture is dry product using diatomaceous earth wherein the ratio of cobalt carbonate to lactic acid is 1:6 with about four parts by weight diatomaceous earth (column 2, lines 24-44).
Shafer et al. do not teach the product has a particle size of about 50-70 mesh. It is for this reason that Wang et al. is joined.
Wang et al. disclose a slow-release phosphate fertilizer comprising diatomaceous earth with a mesh size ranging from 20-110 mesh which is applied to cotton plants (summary of invention).
Shafer et al. and Wang et al. are drawn to mineral compositions comprising diatomaceous earth. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Shafer et al. and Wang et al. to include cobalt minerals with diatomaceous earth in a mesh size of 60-80 mesh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of invention to combine the teachings of Shafer et al. and Wang et al. to include applying mineral products comprising a mesh size of 60-80 mesh because Wang et al. teach diatomaceous earth with a mesh size ranging from 20-110 mesh is effective in providing slow-release fertilizers to cotton plants.
Claims 19, 30 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafer (US 4,009,263; patented February 22, 1977) in view of Wang et al. (CN106010558; published October 12, 2016) as applied to claims 1, 2, 28, 32 and 34-36 in further view of Tenzer et al. (US 4,551,164).
Applicant claims a mineral product with a particles size of about 50-70 mesh consisting of cobalt lactate, a metal sulfate, optionally at least one additional mineral chelated compound other than cobalt lactate, optionally a carrier selected from diatomaceous earth, calcium carbonate, limestone, sugar, dextrose, water, ground corn cobs, starch and combinations thereof and optionally one or more of a fiber, yucca extract, an inorganic salt compound, an inorganic oxide compound, an inorganic hydroxide compound or an enzyme, one or more minerals selected from cobalt, zinc, manganese, copper, iron and combinations and salts thereof having a particle size of about 50-70 mesh.
With respect to claim 19, Shafer et al. do not teach a method of stimulating microbes in soil to increase growth of a plant comprising applying the product to soil. With respect to claims 30-31, Shafer et al. and Shen et al. do not teach fiber selected from yucca or that the composition further comprises 1-5% fiber and 0.1-2% enzyme. It is for this reason that Tenzer et al. is joined.
Tenzer et al. teach a novel plant growth composition comprising a mixture of bacteria and algae and a method of promoting plant growth with the composition (abstract). Tenzer et al. teach that bacteria in soil can benefit plant growth and applying the mixture of bacteria and algae promote plant growth (column 1, lines 22-30 and 45-58). Components of the compositions are prepared by preparing nutrient media which includes ammonium sulfate, tryptose broth (enzymes), trace minerals and other minerals sulfate salts (column 2, lines 8-33). A preferred nutrient source is whey which comprises yucca extract (soresepinium) in a concentration of 0.5-2% and lipase in a concentration of 0.5-2% which aid in stabilization (column 2, lines 42-63). The composition is further stabilized by lactic acid (column 2, lines 64-67). Treating tomato seed with the composition demonstrated increase in fruit number and volume (column 7, lines 25-27).
Shafer et al., Wang et al. and Tenzer et al. are drawn to mineral compositions. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Shafer et al., Wang et al. and Tenzer et al. to include a method of stimulating microbes in soil with the composition with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Shafer et al., Wang et al. and Tenzer et al. to include stimulating microbes in the soil because Tenzer et al. teach bacteria aids in plant growth and formulations comprising yucca and enzymes aid in increasing plant growth by stimulating microbes in soil.
Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Shafer et al., Wang et al. and Tenzer et al. to include 0.5-2% yucca fiber and 0.5-2% enzyme with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Shafer et al., Wang et al. and Tenzer et al. to include to further include fiber and enzymes in this range because Tenzer et al. teach yucca and enzymes in these amounts aid in improving soils and increasing plant growth.
Claims 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafer (US 4,009,263; patented February 22, 1977) in view of Wang et al. (CN106010558; published October 12, 2016), as applied to claims 1, 2, 28, 32 and 34-36 in further view of Zeigler et al. (2004/0228928; published November 18, 2004).
Applicant claims a mineral product with a particles size of about 50-70 mesh consisting of cobalt lactate, a metal sulfate, optionally at least one additional mineral chelated compound other than cobalt lactate, optionally a carrier selected from diatomaceous earth, calcium carbonate, limestone, sugar, dextrose, water, ground corn cobs, starch and combinations thereof and optionally one or more of a fiber, yucca extract, an inorganic salt compound, an inorganic oxide compound, an inorganic hydroxide compound or an enzyme, one or more minerals selected from cobalt, zinc, manganese, copper, iron and combinations and salts thereof having a particle size of about 50-70 mesh.
The teachings of Shafer et al. and Wang et al. are addressed in the above 103 rejection.
With respect to claim 33, Shafer et al. and Wang et al. do not teach larch arabinogalactan. It is for this reason that Zeigler et al. is joined.
Zeigler et al. teach methods of enhancing the potency and bioactivity of polysaccharides with selected minerals (abstract). The minerals include mineral salts that include chelated minerals [0033]. The polysaccharides include larix occidentalis and extracts of larix with arabinogalactans extracted from Larix (larch) showing the best results [0042-44]. Table 1 details mineral enhanced polysaccharide formula containing 40,000 ppm purified larch tree arabinogalactan in water along with minerals in the form of hydroxides including copper [0045].
Shafer et al., Wang et al. and Zeigler et al. are all drawn to mineral compositions. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Shafer et al., Wang et., Zeigler et al. to include larch arabinogalactan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated at the time of the invention to combine the teachings Shafer et al., Wang et al. and Zeigler et al. to include larch arabinogalactan because Ziegler teach that combining minerals with larch arabinogalactan enhances bioactivity and potency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 19, 28 and 30-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Holt et al.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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 DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached on 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights