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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 6 are amended; claims 2-5, 7, 9-10, 14, and 22 are canceled; and claims 23-25 are new. Claims 11-13, 15, and 21 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 6, 8, 16-20, and 23-25 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application filed 05/28/2021, is a 371 filing of PCT/EP2019/083149, filed 11/29/2019, which claims benefit to Provisional Application No. 62/772,780, filed 11/29/2018.
Withdrawn Rejections
Claims 1, 5-7, and 16-19 were rejected under 35 USC 103 over Gangotri in view of Chen. In view of Applicant’s amendments and upon further consideration, the rejection is overcome and is withdrawn.
Claims 8 and 20 were rejected under 35 USC 103 over Chen in view of Gangotri and Bennett. In view of Applicant’s amendments and upon further consideration, the rejection is overcome and is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16-19 and 23-24 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.
Claims 16-19 are unclear because they depend directly or indirectly from canceled claim 7. It is therefore, unclear what is encompassed by the method claims of claims 16-19. It is noted, that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (See MPEP §2111) and therefore, for purposes of compact prosecution, the abovementioned claims are being interpreted as dependent from claim 1. It is suggested to amend “The composition of claim 7…” in claim 16 to “The composition of claim 1…” in order to obviate this rejection.
The term “quintal” in claims 23 and 24 renders the claim indefinite. The term “quintal” is not defined by the claim or the specification nor is it a conventional unit of measurement in the art. For the sake of compact prosecution, it has been interpreted as 100 kg.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 8, 16-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor, S., et al. (1995). Guar Gum: An Alternative Adhesive for Azotobacter Inoculation in Cereals. Annals of Bio. 11(1), p. 129-133 (PTO-892), hereinafter Mor, in view of Chen, Z., et al. (US 2012/0220454 A1, 30 AUG 2012, on record), hereinafter Chen, and Gothandapani, S., et al. (2017). Azotobacter chroococcum: Utilization and potential use for agricultural crop production: An overview. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 4(3): p. 35-42 (PTO-892), hereinafter Gothandapani, as evidenced by Mudgil, D. et al. (2014). Guar gum: processing, properties and food applications-A Review. J Food Sci Technol. 51(3): p. 409-18 (PTO-892), hereinafter Mudgil.
Mor teaches guar gum, gum Arabic and jaggery as adhesives for inoculating Azotobacter inoculants on cereal seeds. Guar gum was found to retain maximum number of Azotobacters on the seeds. Proliferation and distribution of Azotobacters on seeds, roots and cotyledons by using 1% guar gum was better than 40% gum Arabic (abstract).
Regarding claim 1: Guar gum is produced from clusterbeans (i.e., Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) (p. 139, Intro.), reading on the instantly claimed Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (guar) gum, hereinafter “guar gum”. Wheat and pearl millet seeds (10 g each) were treated by Mor with different adhesives which included guar gum (1%). This was followed by treatment with charcoal based inoculant of Azotobacter chroococcum (p. 130, Materials and Methods, para. 1). Thus, Mor teaches applying a biostimulant to a seed as instantly claimed. The Azotobacter chroococcum reads on the instantly claimed microorganisms, specifically bacteria.
Guar gum helped in better survival, proliferation and distribution of Azotobacters on seeds, roots and cotyledons even at 1% as compared to gum Arabic or jaggery at 40 and 10%, respectively (abstract; p.132, final para.). Thus, Mor teaches that guar gum improves the survival and proliferation (i.e., growth) of bacterial inoculants at concentrations as low as 1% as compared to conventional adhesives.
The teachings of Mor differ from that of the instant invention in that Mor does not explicitly teach applying a single composition comprising both the microorganisms and guar gum, nor a ratio of microorganism to guar gum as defined in instant claim 1 and an amount of microorganism per weight of seed as defined in claim 8.
Chen teaches methods and compositions relating to agricultural coatings and, in particular, to seeds or agglomeration of seeds coated with guar or guar derivatives (¶ [0002]). The polymer making up a layer of the coating (i.e., guar gum) has an average molecular weight of between about 5,000 Daltons and 500,000 Daltons (¶ [0034]). The composition can further act as a carrier coating that contains fungicides and beneficial microbials that protect the seed and emerging seedling (¶ [0050]). For example, alfalfa seed coating with incorporated rhizobacteria is used to inoculate the field with beneficial microbials (¶ [0050]). Seed coating techniques include coating the seed in a rotating pan or drum or implanting a non-coated seed into a hole in the ground and spraying a coating composition directly into the hole (¶ [0062-0063]).
Gothandapani discloses facts and observations regarding the important biofertilizer microorganism Azotobacter chroococcum and its potential for crop production (abstract). The recommended viable cell count for biofertilizers comprising Azotobacter is a CFU minimum of 5 × 107 to 1 × 109 cell/g of carrier material or 1 × 109 to 1 × 1012 cell/ml of liquid (Table 1).
First, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use guar gum as a carrier for the microorganism of Mor since guar gum is a known and routine carrier for beneficial microbes in the art of seed coatings as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to inoculate the seeds of Mor with a method that applies an inoculant composition comprising microorganisms and guar gum as a carrier in order to decrease the number of steps in the method. One of ordinary skill in the art could have used guar gum as a microorganism carrier and applied it to seeds via known methods to predictably yield the instantly claimed method. Given that the guar gum and microorganisms would remain in contact with this modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the improved microbial growth afforded by the guar gum in the original method of Mor to be maintained.
Regarding the molecular weight of the guar gum, natural guar gum has an average molecular weight in the range of 0.25-5.0 million (Daltons), as evidenced by Mudgil, which falls within the instantly claimed range. Thus, the guar gum of Mor inherently possesses this molecular weight. In any case, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a guar gum with an average molecular weight of between about 5,000 Daltons and 500,000 Daltons in the above method since such a molecular weight is known and routine in the art of seed coatings as taught by Chen. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding the ratio of microorganism to guar gum, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Azotobacter chroococcum of Mor at a CFU minimum of 5 × 107 to 1 × 109 cells per gram of carrier (i.e., guar) since such an ratio is known and effective in the art as taught by Gothandapani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply such a ratio since it is recommended in biofertilizers containing Azotobacter, such as that of Mor and Chen. Generally, applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding the increase in growth rate, the instant claims recite wherein the guar gum is present at a concentration to increase the growth rate of the microorganisms. While the instant claims do not define the concentration of guar gum used to achieve this effect, the instant specification discloses that guar powder was added at 0.7 wt% in the incubation media (p. 19, lines 12-14). Mor teaches a guar gum concentration of 1%. As such, it seems that the inoculant compositing comprising 1% guar gum would necessarily result in the instantly claimed increase in growth rate which is achieved with as little as 0.7% guar. The combined method above would inherently cause the growth rate of microorganisms to increase by 2-550% as compared to without guar gum regardless of how the growth rate is measured since the instantly claimed increase in growth rate is an inherent property (i.e., result) of the claimed method. When the method made obvious by the prior art is structurally identical to the method claimed, the method must necessarily have the characteristics claimed as an inherent property. It is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter, which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited, or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter to be shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.
Regarding claim 8: As established above, the combined method of Mor, Chen, and Gothandapani makes obvious a method of contacting a biostimulant composition comprising guar gum and microorganisms on a seed, wherein guar gum is present at a concentration (i.e., 1%) to increase the growth rate of the microorganisms as instantly claimed. The combined method utilizes an initial CFU minimum of 5 × 107 to 1 × 109 cells per gram of guar as taught by Gothandapani which is applied to 10 grams of seeds as taught by Mor. The CFU amount of the microorganisms provided per 100 kg of seed is directly related to the inoculant effect of the method. The optimization of a result effective parameter is considered within the skill of the artisan. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to optimize the amount of microorganisms in the inoculant composition per 100 kg of seed depending on the desired inoculant effect of the final method. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed range of 1 x 104 to 1 x 1015 CFU/100 kg seed through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 16-19: The CFU minimum range of 5 × 107 to 1 × 109 cells per gram of guar, made obvious above, falls within each of the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 20: The microorganisms above are bacteria.
Regarding claims 23 and 24: As discussed above, Mor teaches applying 1% guar gum to 10 grams of seed, thus teaching an amount of guar gum per weight of seed. Furthermore, Gothandapani teaches each gram of guar comprises a certain CFU of the microorganism inoculant. Thus, the amount of guar gum applied per weight of seed impacts the amount of microorganism per weight of seed which directly impacts the inoculant effect of the method. The optimization of a result effective parameter is considered within the skill of the artisan. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to optimize the gram amount of guar per 100 kg of seed depending on the desired inoculant effect of the final method. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed range of 50 to 500 g/quintal seed through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1, 6, 8, 16-20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor, Chen, and Gothandapani as applied to claims 1, 8, 16-20, and 23-24 above, and further in view of Çakmakçı. R., et al. (2017). The Role of Soil Beneficial Bacteria in Wheat Production: A Review, Wheat Improvement, Management and Utilization, IntechOpen, London, Ruth Wanyera, Chp. 7 (PTO-892), hereinafter Çakmakçı.
The teachings of Mor, Chen, and Gothandapani are discussed above.
The teachings of Mor, Chen, and Gothandapani differ from that of the instant invention in that Mor, Chen, nor Gothandapani explicitly teach the bacteria species of claims 6 and 25.
Çakmakçı teaches several beneficial free-living rhizobacteria, termed as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), which enhance wheat growth through numerous mechanisms (Intro., para. 3). Specific PGPRs used as bacterial inoculants for wheat include Bacillus subtilis; Bacillus megaterium; Bacillus thuringiensis; Pseudomonas putida; and Azotobacter chroococcum (Tables 1 and 2).
Seed inoculation with PGPR bacterium has been found to improve the growth and nutrient uptake of wheat seedlings via promotion of the plant growth and increased root surface area or the general root architecture (2.5, para. 1).
Specifically, phytohormone-producing Bacillus sp. and B. subtilis have potential at field level to improve wheat productivity (2.3, para. 4). Plants inoculated with B. subtilis show increased chlorophyll content and cytokinin accumulation, which leads to an increase in weight of shoots and roots (2.3, para. 5). Bacillus megaterium M3 inoculation has been shown to provide greater plant nutrient element concentrations than mineral fertilizer application (3, para. 3). Inoculation of wheat seeds with Bacillus thuringiensis KAP5 was shown to improve plant growth under metal-stress condition and may enhance bioremediation process in Cr-contaminated environment (2.6.4, para. 2). Wheat seed inoculation with Pseudomonas putida strains increases percentage germination, shoot height, shoot and root length, weight of spikelets, chlorophyll content, grain yield and iron content (2.4, para. 4).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the PGPRs of Çakmakçı, specifically Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Pseudomonas putida, as the microorganism in the combined method of Mor, Chen, and Gothandapani since such microorganisms are known and routine in the art as taught by Çakmakçı. PGPRs such as Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Pseudomonas putida are taught by Çakmakçı as known and effective microbial inoculants for wheat seeds/plants. The combined method above relates to the inoculation of wheat seeds with Azotobacter chroococcum, which is also a known and effective PGPR as taught by Çakmakçı. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Azotobacter chroococcum with Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Pseudomonas putida, in order to predictably inoculate wheat seeds with a PGPR. Generally, the substitution of one known element for another (i.e., PGPR) to yield predictable results is considered prima facie obvious. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in replacing one PGPR for another since Çakmakçı teaches Bacillus subtilis; Bacillus megaterium; Bacillus thuringiensis; Pseudomonas putida; and Azotobacter chroococcum as inoculants for wheat specifically.
It would have also been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the microorganism (i.e., CFU) applied per gram of guar gum or kg of seed, if needed, depending on the bacteria chosen and the desired inoculation effect. The optimization of a result effective parameter is considered within the skill of the artisan. See, In re Boesch and Slaney (CCPA) 204 USPQ 215. This is what research chemists do, optimization of result-effective variables through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 IIA and B).
Regarding the increase in growth rate, such a substitution does not alter the concentration of guar gum used. Additionally, the method made obvious by the prior art is structurally identical to the method claimed. Thus, the method must necessarily have the characteristics claimed (i.e., the increased growth rate) as an inherent property. It is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter, which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited, or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter to be shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, and 16-19 under 103 in view of Gangotri and Chen have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect the rejection of claims 8 and 20 under 103 in view of Chen, Gangotri, and Bennett have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0112. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5 (Flex).
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616