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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks, filed April 27, 2026. The amendment, filed April 27, 2026, is entered, wherein claims 1, 3, and 9 – 11 are amended, claims 25 – 34 are new, claims 2, 4 – 8, 12, 15, 17 – 19, and 22 – 24 are canceled, and claims 13 – 14, 16, and 20 – 21 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 9 – 11, 13 – 14, 16, 20 – 21, and 25 – 34 are pending in this application and claims 1, 3, 9 – 11, and 25 – 34 are currently examined.
Priority
3. This application is a national stage application of PCT/EP2019/083146, filed November 29, 2019, which claims benefit of domestic application 62/772,810, filed November 29, 2018.
Withdrawn Rejections
4. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 9 – 11, and 23 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 27, 2026, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Ji has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 1.
The rejection of claim 22 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 27, 2026, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Ji as applied to claims 1, 3, 9 – 11, and 23 above, and further in view of Boonstra et al. has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the canceled claim 22.
The rejection of claims , 3, 9 – 11, and 23 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 27, 2026, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7 – 8, 11 – 12, 15, and 21 of copending Application No. 17/298,272 in view of Ji has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 1.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 9 – 11 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 27, 2026, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 15 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12398367B2 in view of Ji has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 1.
The following are modified / new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks, filed April 27, 2026, wherein claims 1, 3, and 9 – 11 are amended, claims 25 – 34 are new, claims 2, 4 – 8, 12, 15, 17 – 19, and 22 – 24 are canceled, and claims 13 – 14, 16, and 20 – 21 are withdrawn. Previously and newly cited references have been used to establish the modified / new grounds of rejection.
New 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, 3, 9 – 11, and 25 – 34 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.
b. Claims 1 and 9 – 11 are amended to include “an anionic guar derivative”. This phrase finds no support in the specification. The specification discusses “guar derivative contains at least one anionic group” in lines 27 – 28 of page 2 and in line 9 of page 3 but never discusses that the guar derivative is an anionic guar derivative. The originally filed disclosure describes a “guar derivative contains at least one anionic group”, but does not describe the guar derivative as having an overall anionic charge, predominantly anionic character, or as excluding cationic or amphoteric guar derivatives. A guar derivative may contain at least one anionic group and still include cationic functionality or exhibit cationic/amphoteric character. Thus, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the narrower “anionic guar derivative”. Dependent claims 3 and 25 – 34 are also rejected because these claims are referring to “anionic guar derivative”. The “anionic guar derivative” will be interpreted as a “guar derivative contains at least one anionic group”.
New 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:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. 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.
Claims 1, 10 – 11, 25 – 26, and 31 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20120220454A1) in view of Leps et al. (US5113619), Heuzé et al. (Feedipedia, 2017, Reference included with PTO-892), and Ji (WO2014/005555A1, cited in the PTO-892 on January 27, 2026).
a. Chen et al. teach seed coating composition that promotes the seedling establishment through water retention or water absorption, which wets the surrounding area of soil around the seed (para. [0006]), wherein the composition comprising at least one layer of carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar (para. [0018]). In one embodiment, such guar derivative may have a weight average molecular weight of between 200,000 Daltons and 1,000,000 Daltons (para. [0034]). Chen et al. teach that the seed coating composition also include at least one filler, wherein the filler may be calcium carbonate (para. [0044]). Chen et al. further teach the layer can comprise a 90 wt.% derivatized guar and 10 wt.% starch mixture (para. [0048]). Thus, Chen et al. teach the claimed method comprising applying a biostimulant composition comprising an anionic guar derivative and calcium carbonate to a seed, which is later planted in the soil, wherein said anionic guar derivative with an average molecular weight between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Daltons contains a carboxymethyl group and a hydroxypropyl group, which read on the limitations of applying a biostimulant composition comprising an anionic guar derivative to a seed, “anionic guar derivative contains a carboxymethyl group and a hydroxypropyl group” of claim 1, “the anionic guar derivative has an average molecular weight comprised between 100,000 g/mol and about 4,000,000 g/mol” of claims 10 and 32, “contacting at least one seed with an anionic guar derivative containing carboxymethyl group and a hydroxypropyl group” of claim 11, “calcium carbonate” of claim 25.
However, Chen et al. do not teach the biostimulant composition comprising a microorganism and do not teach that the microorganism and the anionic guar derivative are combined in the biostimulant composition in a ratio of microorganism:anionic guar derivative ranging from 1 x 104 to 1 x 1015 CFU/g. Chen et al. do not explicitly teach that the anionic guar derivative has a degree of substitution (DS) and a degree of hydroxyalkylation (MS) for anionic substituent groups ranging from 0.01 to 3.0 and about 0.1 and about 1.0, respectively, and that the anionic guar derivative is present at a concentration to increase a growth rate of the microorganism within the biostimulant composition at least 5% compared to without a presence of the anionic guar derivative. Chen et al. also do not teach the biostimulant composition is applied in an amount to provide the anionic guar derivative onto the seed in an amount ranging from 50 to 500 g/100 kg seed and the bacterium in an amount ranging from 1.1 x 104 to 1.1 x 1015 CFU/100 kg seed.
Leps et al. disclose that soil bacteria are known to play an important role in plant growth and some bacteria, such as Pseudomonas sp., are able to promote plant growth while other bacteria can promote emergence of plant seedlings (Col. 1, lines 18 – 22). Leps et al. teach a composition for application to seed, wherein the composition comprising bacteria which are to be coated on a selected seed variety (Col. 2, lines 26 – 34). Leps et al. teach that a seed should bear a bacterial population of 102 to 107 of selected bacterium so that the bacteria are able to affect the root region as desired (Col. 3, lines 14 – 15). Leps et al. explicitly teach that Bradyrhizobium japonicum is applied to soybean seed (Col. 4, line 55). Thus, Leps et al. teach the application of microorganism that is bacterium on a seed and the bacterial population on a seed, which read on the limitation of applying a biostimulant composition comprising a microorganism that is a bacterium to a seed of claim 1.
Heuzé et al. disclose that soybean seed weighs from 120 – 180 mg/seed (page 1, para. 7). This teaching will be used to convert the bacterial loading of 102 to 107 bacteria/seed for soybean seed into a bacterial loading per 100 kg seed.
Ji teaches a method to increase the growth of a plant by coating a seed of said plant with a composition comprising at least a cationic guar (Abstract). One of the guar derivatives disclosed by Ji is carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar (CMHP guar) (page 7, lines 1 – 2). Ji further teaches guar derivatives having a DS between 0.005 and 3 and a MS between 0 and 3 (page 7, lines 7 – 9; lines 12 – 15). Ji teaches that the weight ratio of guar/seed is 0.2% in example 1 (page 12, lines 7 – 8). Thus, Ji teaches the DS of carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar and the weight ratio of guar/seed that is suitable for coating a seed, which read on “anionic guar derivative contains a carboxymethyl group and hydroxypropyl group and exhibits a degree of substitution (DS) for anionic substituent groups ranging from 0.01 to 3.0” of claims 1 and 11 and “a degree of hydroxyalkylation comprised between about 0.1 and about 1.0” of claim 31.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar as taught by Chen et al. with bacteria in view of Leps et al. to form a composition for a method of apply such composition to a seed to promote plant growth because both Chen et al. and Leps et al. teach methods for seed coating to promote plant growth. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do this because both carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar and bacterium, such as Bradyrhizobium japonicum, are known separately in the prior art for the purpose of seed coating, which result in promotion of plant growth, and it would have been obvious to combine them for the same purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to combine carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar as taught by Chen et al. with bacteria in view of Leps et al. to form a composition for a method of apply such composition to a seed to promote plant growth because it is well known to combine components for the same purpose, which results in promoting plant growth.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the DS and MS values for CMHP guar in view of Ji into the CMHP guar of Chen et al. for the seed coating because both Chen et al. and Ji teach using CMHP guar as a seed coating material for improving seed or plant growth performance. Chen et al. teach CMHP guar as a suitable guar derivative in a seed coating layer, but do not explicitly disclose the DS/MS values of the guar. Ji teaches that CMHP guar suitable for seed coating may have a DS between 0.005 and 3 and an MS between 0 and 3. Thus, Ji supplies conventional, art-recognized substitution parameters for the same type of guar derivative used for the same seed coating purpose disclosed by Chen et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select DS/MS values within Ji’s disclosed ranges because DS and MS are known structural parameters that affect the coating behavior of guar derivatives. As Chen et al. uses CMHP guar as a seed coating polymer and Ji teaches workable CMHP guar substitution ranges for seed coating compositions, selecting an DS/MS value within Ji’s disclosed ranges would have involved routine optimization of a known material for its expected coating properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the DS and MS values for CMHP guar in view of Ji into the CMHP guar of Chen et al. for the seed coating because both references use the same guar derivative in seed coating and Ji teaches conventional substitution ranges suitable for the same use.
Regarding the limitations “the ratio of microorganism and anionic guar derivative”, “the anionic guar derivative onto the seed in an amount ranging from 50 to 500 g/100 kg”, and “the bacterium in an amount ranging from 1.1 x 104 to 1.1 x 1015 CFU/100 kg seed” of claims 1, 11, and 33, Leps et al. teach applying bacteria to seed in an amount of 102 to 107 bacteria per seed. Ji teaches applying guar to seed at a guar/seed weight ratio of 0.2%, corresponding to 200 g guar per 100 kg seed, which falls within the claimed “50 to 500 g/100 kg”. Heuzé et al. disclose that soybean seed weighs from 120 – 180 mg/seed (page 1, para. 7). Assuming a conventional soybean seed weight of approximately 0.15 g yields approximately 6.7 x 105 seeds per 100 kg seed. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Leps et al. and Ji correspond to approximately 6.7 x 107 to 6.7 x 1012 bacteria per 100 kg seed, or approximately 3.35 x 105 to 3.35 to 1010 CFU per gram of guar. This range falls within the claimed microorganism:anionic guar derivative ratio of 1 x 104 to 1 x 1015 CFU/g and the claimed bacterium amount of 1.1 x 104 to 1.0 x 1015 CFU/100 kg seed”.
Regarding “to increase a growth rate of the microorganism within the biostimulant composition at least 5% compared to without a presence of the anionic guar derivative”, the combination of Chen et al., Leps et al., and Ji renders obvious a composition comprising the claimed guar derivative and bacteria in a seed coating composition. As the amount of guar derivative used in Ji and the amount of bacterium used in Leps et al. are within the scope of the invention and Chen et al., Leps et al. and Ji teach all the limitations, the result of “increase a growth rate of the bacterium on the see by at least 5%” would be achieved.
Regarding claim 26, Chen et al. teach that the seed coating composition may comprise a guar derivative, including carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar, and may further comprise fillers/carriers such as calcium carbonate. Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed carrier:anionic guar derivative weight ratio of 20:1 to 1:1. However, the relative amount of carrier and guar derivative in a seed coating composition would have been a result-effective variable because it is known in the art that carrier/filler amount would affect the properties of the coating composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the relative amounts of calcium carbonate and CMHP guar, including the broadly claimed range of 20:1 to 1:1, to obtain a workable seed coating composition.
Claims 9, 29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20120220454A1) in view of Leps et al. (US5113619), Heuzé et al. (Feedipedia, 2017, Reference included with PTO-892), and Ji (WO2014/005555A1, cited in the PTO-892 on January 27, 2026) as applied to claims 1, 10 – 11, 25 – 26, and 31 – 33 above, and further in view of Boonstra et al. (US3912713, cited in the PTO-892 on August 14, 2025) and Pasha (Pak. J. Pharm. Sci., 2008, Vol. 21, Issue 1, page 40 – 44, Reference included with PTO-892).
b. Chen et al., Leps et al., Heuzé et al., and Ji teach the limitations discussed above. Leps et al. further teach that bacteria may be grown in a growth medium and that medium may be a liquid medium (Col. 2, lines 47 – 65). Thus, Leps et al. teach a liquid culture medium containing bacteria.
However, Chen et al., Leps et al., Heuzé et al., and Ji do not teach the method further comprising the method of preparing the anionic guar derivative, wherein the method comprises introducing a guar split to one or more derivatizing agents containing a reactive group comprising an anionic group to prepare the anionic guar derivative.
Boonstra et al. teach a method of producing a non-lumping derivatives of guar gum, which comprises derivatizing guar gum in the form of guar gum splits at a moisture content of 20 – 80% by weight (Col. 2, lines 1 – 5), wherein the derivatizing agents may be compounds containing epoxy groups, such as alkylene oxides (Col. 2, lines 26 – 27; line 32). Thus, Boonstra et al. teach the step of introducing a guar split to one or more derivatizing agents containing a reactive group which read on the “introducing a guar split to one or more derivatizing agents containing a reactive group” of claims 9 and 34.
Pasha teaches the derivatization of guar to sodium carboxymethylhydroxypropyl derivative (Title). Monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide are used in the derivatization (page 40, Right Col., para. 1). Thus, Pasha teaches the specific derivatizing agents for producing CMHP guar, which reads on “comprising an anionic group to prepare the anionic guar derivative, wherein the anionic guar derivative contains the carboxymethyl group and a hydroxypropyl group” of claims 9 and 34.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the CMHP guar as taught by Chen et al. and Ji using the guar split derivatization method and the specific reagents, such as monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide, in view of Boonstra et al. and Pasha because Boonstra et al. teach a conventional process for preparing guar gum derivatives from guar splits, Pasha teaches the specific reagents used to produce CMHP guar, and Chen et al. and Ji teach that CMHP guar derivatives are suitable guar derivatives for seed coating applications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to prepare the CMHP guar as taught by Chen et al. and Ji using the guar split derivatization method and the specific reagents, such as monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide, in view of Boonstra et al. and Pasha because Boonstra et al. teach derivatizing guar splits using known agents, including alkylene oxides and Pasha explicitly teaches the reagents, including monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide, for the derivatization of CMHP guar.
Regarding claim 29, Leps et al. teach that bacteria may be grown in a growth medium and that medium may be a liquid medium. Thus, Leps et al. teach a liquid culture medium containing bacteria. Chen et al. and Ji teach CMHP guar derivatives suitable for seed coating compositions. It would have been obvious to prepare the claimed biostimulant composition by adding the CMHP guar derivatives taught by Chen et al. and Ji to the bacteria containing liquid culture medium in view of Leps et al. prior to application to seed because Leps et al. teach preparing bacterial seed inoculant compositions from bacteria-containing culture materials, and Chen et al. and Ji teach CMHP guar as a suitable seed coating polymer for the same seed treatment purpose.
Claims 27 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20120220454A1) in view of Leps et al. (US5113619), Heuzé et al. (Feedipedia, 2017, Reference included with PTO-892), and Ji (WO2014/005555A1, cited in the PTO-892 on January 27, 2026) as applied to claims 1, 10 – 11, 25 – 26, and 31 – 33 above, and further in view of Gerard et al. (EP2949708A1) and Remon et al. (EP1565258B1).
c. Chen et al., Leps et al., Heuzé et al., and Ji teach the limitations discussed above. Chen et al. further teach that seed coating techniques include seed in a rotating pan or drum is misted with water or other liquid and then gradually a fine inert powder (para. [0062]),
However, Chen et al., Leps et al., Heuzé et al., and Ji do not teach the method further comprising wet granulation, wherein the anionic guar derivative is mixed with the carrier and water, and wherein content of water comprises from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% based on a total weight of wet granules and the wet granules have a diameter ranging from 0.1 to 6 mm.
Gerard et al. teach method for producing granules comprising surface-reacted calcium carbonate (Title). Gerard et al. disclose that wet granulation is one of the most important types of granulation, wherein granules are formed by the addition of granulation liquid onto a powder bed which is under the influence of an impeller and that the wetting of the components within the formation results in the agglomeration of the primary powder particles to produce wet granules (para. [0011]). The granulation liquid may be water (para. [0051]). In some examples using surface-reacted calcium carbonate, binder, and water, wherein the solids after water are 61 – 67 wt.%, corresponding to about 33 – 39 wt.% water in the wet granules. Gerard et al. further teach that granules are of considerable important and more preferred than powders. Thus, agglomeration of powders leading to granules typically having a size range between 0.2 to 4.0 mm depending on their subsequent use is widely use to improve physical properties of powders like wettability, flowability, bulk density and product appearance. Furthermore, granulation is carried out to prevent the segregation of the constituents of powder mixes, to prevent dusting or to improve flowability (para. [0008 – 0009]). Thus, Gerard et al. teach the process of wet granulation and the preferred size of the granules after wet granulation. The disclosed granule size range falls within the claimed diameter of 0.1 to 6 mm.
Remon et al. teach a process for the continuous wet granulation of powder materials. The process may be applied to a wide range of industries, including agricultural products (para. [0001]). Granulation is a process of particle size enlargement of powdered ingredients. Ideally, granulation should be relatively dust free (reduced dustiness minimizes loses, inhalation and explosion risks during further use of the granules. Other desired properties of granulated products include improved flow and handling which facilitates controlled metering; increased bulk density; reduced pressure loss for fluid flow through a packed bed; controlled dissolution rates; and substantially maintained surface area of the original particles (para. [0004]). A wet method comprises blending the components in a powder mixer and then wetting the blended mixture using a liquid phase or solvent that is volatile and non-toxic (para. [0006]). For economic and safety reasons, water is usually preferred as the granulating liquid (para. [0030]). Thus, Remon et al. teach mixing components and water together, which reads on “mixed with the carrier and water” of claim 27.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composition comprising anionic guar derivative and a carrier, such as calcium carbonate, as taught by Chen et al. and Ji into wet granules via wet granulation in view of Gerard et al. and Remon et al. because Gerard et al. and Remon et al. teach that wet granulation is a known technique for agglomerating powder components into granules and improving powder properties, including flowability, wettability, bulk dusting and reduced segregation. These properties would have been desirable for the seed-treatment composition comprising the anionic guar derivative and carrier taught by Chen et al. and Ji because the composition comprises particulate materials including an anionic guar derivative and a carrier. Improved flowability and handling facilitate mixing, transport, storage, and application of the composition, while reduced dusting and segregation help maintain a more uniform distribution of the guar derivative and carrier throughout the coating process.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed April 27, 2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same primary reference in the prior rejection of record. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found primary reference.
Regarding Smith et al., Applicant argues that Smith et al. do not disclose using guar derivatives nor culturing the bacteria or microorganisms with the carbohydrate to improve the growth rate of the microorganisms during or after culture. Applicant argues that Smith et al. teach to dehydrate the microorganism to a dormant state, so the microorganisms cannot grow or multiply until after emerging from a state of dormancy after a prolonged exposure to moisture, which is in contrast to the instantly claimed method.
Regarding Ji, Applicant argues that Ji’s disclosure is limited to cationic guar derivatives, whereas the claims require anionic guar derivatives and further asserts that the guar species explicitly identified as “cationic” in Ji are distinguished from CMHP guar because the term “cationic” is not immediate precede CMHP guar in the list of disclosed guar species. Applicant therefore contends that CMHP guar would not have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a cationic guar derivative. Applicant further argues that Ji’s experimental data show that different guar derivatives exhibit different and unpredictable biostimulant effects. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected gum Arabic, cationic guar, and the claimed anionic guar derivative to be interchangeable or to produce the same plant-growth benefits.
Applicant additionally argues that Smith et al. teach dehydrating microorganisms to achieve a dormant state prior to incorporation into a seed coating composition. According to Applicant, because dormant microorganisms are not actively growing or multiplying, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Smith et al. for teachings regarding increasing microbial growth rate. Applicant therefore contends that Ji does not remedy the deficiencies of Smith et al. and that there would have been no motivation to combine Smith et al. with Ji to arrive at claimed invention. Applicant further argues that neither Smith et al. nor ji teach or suggest using an anionic guar derivative to improve the growth rate of microorganisms prior to application of a composition containing the microorganisms to a plant, seed, or soil.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive with respect to the present rejection. Applicant’s arguments are directed primarily to the prior rejection based on Smith et al. in view of Ji. However, the present rejection relies on Chen et al. as the primary reference for teaching the anionic guar derivative, including carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar and relies on Leps et al. for the bacterial seed treatment composition. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments that Smith et al. fail to teach guar derivatives or that Smith et al. disclose dormant microorganisms do not address the present rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Ji are also not persuasive because the present rejection does not rely on Ji as the sole teaching of the claimed anionic guar derivative. Instead, Chen et al. teach the claimed CMHP guar. Ji is relied upon for additional teachings regarding guar compositions for seed treatment, substitution values, and application amounts. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Ji is directed to cationic guar derivatives does not overcome the rejection based on the combined teachings of Chen et al., Leps et al., and Ji. Moreover, Applicant has not adequately addressed the fact that Ji explicitly identifies CMHP guar among the guar species disclosed in the section describing cationic guars. Thus, Applicant has not sufficiently explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosed CMHP guar to be excluded from Ji’s cationic guar disclosure. Applicant also has not shown that the CMHP guar disclosed in Ji is structurally distinct from the claimed guar derivative.
Applicant’s argument regarding unpredictability among different guar derivatives is also unpersuasive because the rejection is not based on substituting gum Arabic of Smith et al. with Ji’s cationic guar. Instead, Chen et al. explicitly teach CMHP guar for seed coating use and Ji provides overlapping substitution or application parameters for guar compositions of seed treatment. The claimed composition is therefore rendered obvious by the combined teachings of the references.
Modified / New Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 10 – 11, 25 – 26, 30, and 31 – 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7 – 8, 11 – 12, 15, and 21 of copending Application No. 17/298,272 (claim sets of April 23, 2026) in view of Chen et al. (US20120220454A1) and Ji (WO2014/005555A1, cited in the PTO-892 on January 27, 2026).
a. ‘272 teaches a method for increasing the growth rate of microorganisms comprising applying a biostimulant composition comprising microorganisms and Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (guar) gum to a seed, wherein the microorganisms are bacteria, the guar gum is present at a concentration increase the growth rate of the microorganisms by 2 – 550% compared to without the presence of the guar gum, the guar gum possesses an average molecular weight within a 2,000 to 5,000,000 Daltons, and the microorganism and the guar gum are combined in a ratio microorganism:guar gum ranging from 1 x 104 to 1 x 1015 CFU/g, and wherein the presence of guar gum in the biostimulant composition improved water content of the plant (claims 1, 12, 16 – 17, and 20 – 21). ‘272 teaches a method for increasing the growth rate of microorganisms, wherein the method comprises a step of contacting a biostimulant composition comprising Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (guar) gum, a carrier, and microorganisms on at least one seed with guar gum, wherein the amount of microorganism ranges from 1 x 104 to 1 x 1015 CFU/100 kg seed and the guar gum is present at a concentration to increase the growth rate of the microorganisms at least 5% compared to without the presence of the guar gum, wherein the carrier is calcium carbonate, and wherein a weight ratio between the carrier and the guar gum ranges from 20:1 to 1:1 (claims 8 and 26 – 27). ‘272 teaches that the guar gum is used in an amount ranging from 50 to 500 g/100 kg seed (claims 23 – 24). Finally, ‘272 teaches that the microorganism is a bacterium, wherein the bacterium is Bradyrhizobium japonicum strain CCT 4065 (claims 25 and 29).
However, ‘272 does not teach the biostimulant composition comprises an anionic guar derivative, wherein the anionic guar derivative contains a carboxymethyl group and a hydroxypropyl group and exhibits a DS ranging from 0.01 to 3.0. ‘272 does not teach the concentration of guar derivative that will increase the growth rate of the microorganism at least 5% compared to without a presence of the guar derivative.
Chen et al. teach seed coating composition that promotes the seedling establishment through water retention or water absorption, which wets the surrounding area of soil around the seed (para. [0006]), wherein the composition comprising at least one layer of carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar (para. [0018]).
Ji teaches a method to increase the growth of a plant by coating a seed of said plant with a composition comprising at least a cationic guar (Abstract). Cationic guars used in the invention may be carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar (CMHP guar) (page 7, lines 1 – 2). The MS of cationic guars is between 0 and 3 and the DS of cationic guars is between 0.005 and 3 (page 7, lines 7 – 9; lines 12 – 15).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the guar gum in the biostimulant composition for the seed coating as taught by ‘272 with CMHP guar in view of Chen et al. because both ‘272 and Chen et al. are directed to seed treatment compositions comprising guar-based material for improving plant or seed performance and both references recognize guar-based materials as useful in seed treatment for retaining water. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the guar gum in the biostimulant composition for the seed coating as taught by ‘272 with CMHP guar in view of Chen et al. because Chen et al. teach that CMHP guar provides water retention and water absorption benefits in seed coating compositions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected incorporation of the known CMHP guar into the guar-based seed treating composition of ‘272 to provide the predictable benefit of improved moisture retention associated with guar-derived coating materials.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the DS and MS values for CMHP guar in view of Ji into the CMHP guar of Chen et al. for the seed coating because both Chen et al. and Ji teach using CMHP guar as a seed coating material for improving seed or plant growth performance. Chen et al. teach CMHP guar as a suitable guar derivative in a seed coating layer, but do not explicitly disclose the DS/MS values of the guar. Ji teaches that CMHP guar suitable for seed coating may have a DS between 0.005 and 3 and an MS between 0 and 3. Thus, Ji supplies conventional, art-recognized substitution parameters for the same type of guar derivative used for the same seed coating purpose disclosed by Chen et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select DS/MS values within Ji’s disclosed ranges because DS and MS are known structural parameters that affect the coating behavior of guar derivatives. As Chen et al. uses CMHP guar as a seed coating polymer and Ji teaches workable CMHP guar substitution ranges for seed coating compositions, selecting an DS/MS value within Ji’s disclosed ranges would have involved routine optimization of a known material for its expected coating properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the DS and MS values for CMHP guar in view of Ji into the CMHP guar of Chen et al. for the seed coating because both references use the same guar derivative in seed coating and Ji teaches conventional substitution ranges suitable for the same use.
Regarding the “ratio of microorganisms:anionic guar derivative” and the amount of anionic guar derivative, ‘272 teaches that the microorganism and guar gum are combined in a ratio ranging from 1 x 104 to 1 x 1015 CFU/g and that the amount of guar gum is from 50 to 500 g/100 kg seed. The claimed ratio and amount are the same range. Although ‘272 recites guar gum rather than the CMHP guar derivative, the ratio and amount would have been maintained when substituting the CMHP guar of Chen et al. for the guar gum of ‘272 because the substitution changes the identity of the guar material, not the known microorganism-to-guar ratio. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the same microorganism:guar ratio and the same amount of guar taught by ‘272 with the CMHP guar derivative of Chen et al. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best ratio of microorganism:anionic guar derivative and the best amount of anionic guar derivative based on the teachings of ‘272 for the optimal biostimulant characteristics.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 9 and 34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7 – 8, 11 – 12, 15, and 21 of copending Application No. 17/298,272 (claim sets of April 23, 2026) in view of Chen et al. (US20120220454A1) and Ji (WO2014/005555A1, cited in the PTO-892 on January 27, 2026) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10 – 11, 25 – 26, 30, and 31 – 33, and further in view of Boonstra et al. (US3912713, cited in the PTO-892 on August 14, 2025) and Pasha (Pak. J. Pharm. Sci., 2008, Vol. 21, Issue 1, page 40 – 44, Reference included with PTO-892).
b. ‘272, Chen et al., and Ji teach the limitations discussed above.
However, ‘272, Chen et al., and Ji do not teach the method further comprising the method of preparing the anionic guar derivative, wherein the method comprises introducing a guar split to one or more derivatizing agents containing a reactive group comprising an anionic group to prepare the anionic guar derivative.
Boonstra et al. teach a method of producing a non-lumping derivatives of guar gum, which comprises derivatizing guar gum in the form of guar gum splits at a moisture content of 20 – 80% by weight (Col. 2, lines 1 – 5), wherein the derivatizing agents may be compounds containing epoxy groups, such as alkylene oxides (Col. 2, lines 26 – 27; line 32). Thus, Boonstra et al. teach the step of introducing a guar split to one or more derivatizing agents containing a reactive group, which read on the “introducing a guar split to one or more derivatizing agents containing a reactive group” of claims 9 and 34.
Pasha teaches the derivatization of guar to sodium carboxymethylhydroxypropyl derivative (Title). Monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide are used in the derivatization (page 40, Right Col., para. 1). Thus, Pasha teaches the specific derivatizing agents for producing CMHP guar, which reads on “comprising an anionic group to prepare the anionic guar derivative, wherein the anionic guar derivative contains the carboxymethyl group and a hydroxypropyl group” of claims 9 and 34.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the CMHP guar as taught by Chen et al. and Ji using the guar split derivatization method and the specific reagents, such as monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide in view of Boonstra et al. and Pasha because Boonstra et al. teach a conventional process for preparing guar gum derivatives from guar splits, Pasha teaches the specific reagents used to produce CMHP guar, and Chen et al. and Ji teach that CMHP guar derivatives are suitable guar derivatives for seed coating applications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to prepare the CMHP guar as taught by Chen et al. and Ji using the guar split derivatization method and the specific reagents, such as monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide, in view of Boonstra et al. and Pasha because Boonstra et al. explicitly teach derivatizing guar splits using known agents, including alkylene oxides, and Pasha explicitly teaches the reagents, including monochloro sodium acetate and propylene oxide, for the derivatization of CMHP guar.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 27 – 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7 – 8, 11 – 12, 15, and 21 of copending Application No. 17/298,272 (claim sets of April 23, 2026) in view of Chen et al. (US20120220454A1) and Ji (WO2014/005555A1, cited in the PTO-892 on January 27, 2026) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10 – 11, 25 – 26, 30, and 31 – 33, and further in view of and further in view of Gerard et al. (EP2949708A1) and Remon et al. (EP1565258B1).
c. ‘272, Chen et al., and Ji teach the limitations discussed above. Chen et al. further teach that seed coating techniques include seed in a rotating pan or drum is misted with water or other liquid and then gradually a fine inert powder (para. [0062]),
However, ‘272, Chen et al., and Ji do not teach the method further comprising wet granulation, wherein the anionic guar derivative is mixed with the carrier and water, and wherein content of water comprises from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% based on a total weight of wet granules and the wet granules have a diameter ranging from 0.1 to 6 mm.
Gerard et al. teach method for producing granules comprising surface-reacted calcium carbonate (Title). Gerard et al. disclose that wet granulation is one of the most important types of granulation, wherein granules are formed by the addition of granulation liquid onto a powder bed which is under the influence of an impeller and that the wetting of the components within the formation results in the agglomeration of the primary powder particles to produce wet granules (para. [0011]). The granulation liquid may be water (para. [0051]). In some examples using surface-reacted calcium carbonate, binder, and water, wherein the solids after water are 61 – 67 wt.%, corresponding to about 33 – 39 wt.% water in the wet granules. Gerard et al. further teach that granules are of considerable important and more preferred than powders. Thus, agglomeration of powders leading to granules typically having a size range between 0.2 to 4.0 mm depending on their subsequent use is widely use to improve physical properties of powders like wettability, flowability, bulk density and product appearance. Furthermore, granulation is carried out to prevent the segregation of the constituents of powder mixes, to prevent dusting or to improve flowability (para. [0008 – 0009]). Thus, Gerard et al. teach the process of wet granulation and the preferred size of the granules after wet granulation. The disclosed granule size range falls within the claimed diameter of 0.1 to 6 mm.
Remon et al. teach a process for the continuous wet granulation of powder materials. The process may be applied to a wide range of industries, including agricultural products (para. [0001]). Granulation is a process of particle size enlargement of powdered ingredients. Ideally, granulation should be relatively dust free (reduced dustiness minimizes loses, inhalation and explosion risks during further use of the granules. Other desired properties of granulated products include improved flow and handling which facilitates controlled metering; increased bulk density; reduced pressure loss for fluid flow through a packed bed; controlled dissolution rates; and substantially maintained surface area of the original particles (para. [0004]). A wet method comprises blending the components in a powder mixer and then wetting the blended mixture using a liquid phase or solvent that is volatile and non-toxic (para. [0006]). For economic and safety reasons, water is usually preferred as the granulating liquid (para. [0030]). Thus, Remon et al. teach mixing components and water together, which reads on “mixed with the carrier and water” of claim 27.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composition comprising anionic guar derivative and a carrier, such as calcium carbonate, as taught by Chen et al. and Ji into wet granules via wet granulation in view of Gerard et al. and Remon et al. because Gerard et al. and Remon et al. teach that wet granulation is a known technique for agglomerating powder components into granules and improving powder properties, including flowability, wettability, bulk dusting and reduced segregation. These properties would have been desirable for the seed-treatment composition comprising the anionic guar derivative and carrier taught by Chen et al. and Ji because the composition comprises particulate materials including an anionic guar derivative and a carrier. Improved flowability and handling facilitate mixing, transport, storage, and application of the composition, while reduced dusting and segregation help maintain a more uniform distribution of the guar derivative and carrier throughout the coating process.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant does not file any terminal disclaimer and does not provide other remarks for the previous double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is found to be allowable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified / 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 HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is 571-270-0265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, SCARLETT GOON can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/H.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights