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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 -withdrawn
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.
The rejection of Claims1-28 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn. The claims 1-28 are amended to recite,
“wherein the techniqiues for growing the plants comprise applying to the farmland a soil treatment composition comprising one or more microorganisms and/or microbial growth by-products, wherein the one or more microorganisms are selected from Bacillus spp., Trichoderma spp., Wickerhamvomyvces spp., and Starmierella spp.;and the animal husbandry aspect comprises making the plants produced in the farmland available to a ruminant livestock animal such that the ruminant livestock animal ingests the plants,wherein the agricultural aspect results in reduced greenhouse gas emissions from the farmland and/or enhanced carbon sequestration in the farmland compared with traditional agricultural techniques, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of producing ruminant livestock feed and/or animal-based products from said ruminant livestock.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103-withdrawn
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 rejection of Claim(s) 1,6,10-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zho et al.(US 20190185871; 06/20/2019) is withdrawn.
Zho et al. do not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 2, i.e.,
“wherein the techniques for growing the plants comprise applying to the farmland a soil treatment composition comprising one or more microorganisms and/or microbial growth by-products, wherein the one or more microorganisms are selected from Bacillus spp., Trichoderma spp., Wickerhamvomyvces spp., andStarmierella spp.;and the animal husbandry aspect comprises making the plants produced in the farmland available to a ruminant livestock animal such that the ruminant livestock animal ingests the plants,wherein the agricultural aspect results in reduced greenhouse gas emissions from the farmland and/or enhanced carbon sequestration in the farmland compared with traditional agricultural techniques, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of producing ruminant livestock feed and/or animal-based products from said ruminant livestock.”
As is currently recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103-New
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-15,17,19,22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et. al.(WO 2020210074A1;10/15/2020).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Farmer et al. ‘ 074 teach in the “Description” section, “PASTURE TREATMENTS FOR ENHANCED CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND REDUCTION IN LIVESTOCK-PRODUCED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS”.
Farmer et al. page 3 last paragraph teach, “the composition comprises one or more bacteria and or growth by products thereof. The bacteria can be, for example, a Myxococcus sp. (e.g., M. xanthus), and/or one or more Bacillus spp. bacteria. In certain embodiments, the Bacillus spp. are B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis and/or B. licheniformis. Bacteria can be used in spore form, as vegetative cells, and/or as a mixture thereof. In one embodiment, the composition comprises B. amyloliqmfaciens. In a preferred embodiment, the strain of B. amyloliquefaciens is B. amyloliqmfaciens NRRL B-67928 ("B. amy”)” wherein the composition can be applied to a field, pasture of livestock animals graze and wherein the microorganism is specifically B. amyloliquefaciens NRRL B-67928(see Farmer et al. claim 4) as well as , Trichoderma viridae, Wickerhamomyces anomalus, Starmerella bombicola(claim 32) . Farmer et al.at claim 35 teach that the composition can further comprise a saturated long chain fatty acid selected from stearic acid, palmitic acid and myristic acid.
Farmer et al. ‘ 074 page 4 lines 1-14 teach, “the composition comprises one or more yeasts and/or one or more growth by-products thereof. The yeast(s) can be, for example, Wickerhamomyces anomalus, Saccharomyces spp. (e.g., S. cerevisiae and/or S. houlardii ), Starmerella bombicola, Meyerozyma guilliermondii, Pichia occidentalis, Monascus purpureus, and/or Acremonium chrysogenum. The yeast(s) can be in the form of live or inactive cells or spores, as well as in the form of dried and/or dormant cells (e.g., a yeast hydrolysate)”
Farmer et al. ‘ 074 at page 15 lines 3-10 teach that the composition can comprise biosurfactant such as: lycolipids, lipopeptides, flavolipids, phospholipids, and high molecular weight polymers such as lipoproteins, lipopolysaccharide-protein complexes, and polysaccharide-protein-fatty acid complexes as well as
Glycolipids including sophoro lipids, rhamnolipids, cellobiose lipids, mannosylerythritol lipids and trehalose lipids. In one embodiment, the biosurfactant is a lipopeptide. Lipopeptides can include, for example, surfactin, iturin, arthrofactin, viscosin, fengycin, and lichenysin.
Farmer et al. ‘ 074 at page 17 lines 10-11 teach that
the composition can be applied to animal fodder, or cut and dried plant matter, such as hay, straw, silage, sprouted grains, legumes and/or grains.
Farmer et al. ‘ 074 at page 17 lines 11-14 teach that “the composition may be prepared as a spray-dried biomass product” and that “the biomass may be separated by known methods, such as centrifugation, filtration, separation, decanting, a combination of separation and decanting, ultrafiltration or microfiltration.”
Farmer et. al. ‘ 074 at page 18 line 2 teach the “cultivation of microorganisms” and at page 25 lines 26-27 teach
Farmer et al. ‘ 074 page 6 line 8-11 and lines 19-22 and 33-37 teach livestock food source and inoculation of soil with beneficial microorganisms and examples of ruminant animals, respectively.:
“In a specific embodiment, the field or pasture is a food source for the livestock animals, comprising grasses and/or other plants upon which the livestock animals graze. The livestock animals are placed in the field or pasture to graze, thereby ingesting the composition in addition to ingesting the grasses and/or other plants in the pasture.”
“In certain embodiments, the methods can also be used for enhancing soil carbon sequestration, wherein the soil of a field or pasture is inoculated with one or more beneficial microorganisms that enhance the amount of plant and microbial biomass in the pasture or field, thereby transforming the field or pasture into a carbon sink.”
“In certain preferred embodiments, the livestock are“ruminants,” or mammals that utilize a compartmentalized stomach suited for fermenting plant-based foods prior to digestion with the help of a specialized gut microbiome. Ruminants include, for example, bovines (e.g., bison, bongo, buffalo, cow, bull, ox, kudu, imbabala, water buffalo, yak, and zebu), sheep, goats, ibex, giraffes, deer, elk, moose, camels, caribou, reindeer, antelope, gazelle, impala, wildebeest, and some kangaroos.” The combination of teaches above disclosed in Farmer et al. renders obvious the instant claims.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1,3-15,17,19,22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et. al.(WO 2018049182A2;103/15/2018).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Farmer et al. ‘182 make claims 68-83 rendering the instant claims obvious:
Farmer et al. ‘182 claims 68-83 recite,
“68. A method of improving plant health, agricultural yield, and/or water usage of a plant wherein said method comprises a method for providing microbes and/or microbe-based products for application to plants and/or their environment, wherein said method comprises growing microbes in a microbe growth facility to produce a microbe-based product and transporting the microbe-based product to a location for application to plants, wherein said microbe growth facility comprises a plurality of modular growth vessels in which the same, or different, microbes can be grown, under the same, or different, growth conditions, and wherein the growth conditions that can be varied between growth vessels include one or more of growth medium, oxygenation, pH, agitation, and temperature.
69. The method of claim 68, wherein the microbes and/or microbe-based products are applied to soil in which the plant grows or will be planted.
70. The method of claim 68, wherein the method optionally comprises adding nutrients for microbial growth.
71. The method of claim 68, wherein the method comprises contacting the soil with a microbial growth by-product.
72. The method of claim 71 , wherein the microbial growth by-product is a sophorolipid.
73. The method of claim 69, wherein Slarmerella bombicoia and a growth by-product thereof are contacted with the soil.
74. The method of claim 73, wherein the growth by-product is a sophorolipid.
75. The method of claim 69, wherein Wickerhamomyces anomalus and a growth by-product thereof are contacted with the soil.
76. The method of claim 75, wherein the growth by-product is a sophorolipid.
77. The method of claim 69, used to improve one or more qualities of soil .
78. The method of claim 77, used to improve water retention in dry soil.
79. The method of claim 77, used to improve water drainage and/or dispersal in waterlogged soil.
80. The method of claim 77, used to improve nutrient retention in depleted soil.
81. The method of claim 77, used to improve aeration and/or porosity of compacted soil
82. The method of claim 69, used to enhance nutrient absorption in plant roots.
83. The method of claim 69, used to enhance water absorption in plant roots.”
The claims in Farmer et al. renders the instant claims obvious.
In addition Farmer et.al. ‘182 disclose the following supporting that the instant claims are obvious.
Farmer et al. ‘182 in the “BRIEF SUMMARY” teach “enhancing livestock and other animal health”. Farmer et al. ‘182 at claim 1 teach a “microbe-based product”.
Farmer et al. ‘182 at claim 14 teach the microbe based product comprising Starmerella and/or Bacillus
Farmer et al. ‘182 at claim 11 teach the microbe based product comprising “ one or more ingredients selected from carriers, nutrients, tracking agents, wetting agents, anti-foaming agents and pH adjusters”.
Farmer et al. at ‘182 claim 15-16 teach the microbe based product comprising a biosurfactant including a sophorolipid (SLP) and/or a mannosylerythrithol lipid.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1,3,5,6,11,15,16,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al.(CN 106045772A; 10/26/2016). Wu et al. abstract teach
“The invention claims a microorganism product for effectively reducing greenhouse gas emission of farmland soil and preparation method thereof, wherein the microorganism product in corn, vegetable garden soil mixture feces adding cold-resistant short bacillus, bacillus amyloliquefaciens and stacking for 4-6 days to obtain the product, wherein said corn vegetable garden soil mixture in excrement weight ratio of rice flour to the vegetable garden soil is 1: 1. this invention is simple, the cost is low and it is easy to operate; it is agricultural climate change and providing feasible operation of agricultural greenhouse gas emission reducing method and technology; the any one block farmland, the crop seeding or transplanting after planting, fertilizing each mu using 100 kg of product of the invention can reduce methane discharge by 35-56, reducing 48-69 of nitrous oxide emissions, and can improve the crop yield by 3-6 %.”
Wu et al.’s Background technology” section teach, “Until now there is no using microbial inhibiting farmland soil of greenhouse gas emission report. using the inhibiting activity of microorganism into the soil of the soil microorganism, so as to reach the purpose of inhibiting soil greenhouse gas, for agricultural and climate change has important theoretical and practical significance and has important application prospect.” Wu et al.’s “Invention Contents” Section teach the cultivation of the microorganism(Bacillus) to be applied to the soil in the “Abstract” section above.
Wu et al.’s Claims 1-2 recite,
“1. A method for effectively reducing greenhouse gas emission of farmland soil microorganism product, wherein the microorganism product in corn, vegetable garden soil mixture feces adding cold-resistant short bacillus, bacillus amyloliquefaciens and stacking for 4-6 days to obtain the product, wherein the corn powder, vegetable garden soil mixture in excrement weight ratio of rice flour to the vegetable garden soil is 1: 1.
2. Said method for effectively reducing greenhouse gas emission of farmland soil microorganism product according to claim 1 comprises the following steps: 1) adopting liquid fermentation to produce cold-resistant short bacillus, obtaining cold-resistant short bacillus fermentation centrifugal precipitate; 2) produced by liquid fermentation bacillus amyloliquefaciens, bacillus amyloliquefaciens fermentation centrifugal precipitate is obtained, 3) mixing uniformly according to weight ratio of 1: 1 the corn flour and vegetable garden soil fertile, obtaining corn powder mixtures of vegetable garden soil, 4) at every 1000 kg of corn powder, respectively adding 20-200 kg of cold-resistant short bacillus fermentation centrifugal precipitate in the vegetable garden soil mixture, bacillus amyloliquefaciens fermentation centrifugal precipitate, then adding 150-300 kilograms of water, stirring uniformly, covering plastic film to ferment for 4-6 days to obtain effectively reducing discharge of greenhouse gas of farmland soil microorganism product.” Based on the above teachings it would have been obvious that the application of bacillus amyloliquefaciens to soil effectively reducing greenhouse gas emission of farmland soil.
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Telephonic Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALTON NATHANIEL PRYOR whose telephone number is (571)272-0621. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00 M-F.
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 Liu can be reached on 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.
/ALTON N PRYOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights