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 .
Status of Action/Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 16-18 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following
rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections
presently being applied to the instant application.
New/Maintained Claim(s) Rejection(s)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0220454 A1) in view of Ji et al. (WO2016101862).
Chen teaches compositions relating to agricultural coatings and, in particular, to seeds or agglomeration of seeds coated with guar or guar derivatives, and methods for use. The term “guar” and “guar gum” is interchangeable as per Chen. Chen teaches the seed composition comprises at least one guar or guar derivative, which suggests that guar can be derivatized guar or natural/native guar, which reads on the claimed limitation wherein guar gum consists of native guar. Chen teaches the coating compositions promote seedling establishment and plant growth. The method comprises contacting the guar to the seed to coat all or a portion of the seed. Chen teaches in one embodiment, a seed is implanted in a hole, cavity or hollowed area in the ground and immediately or soon thereafter a coating composition is sprayed or applied directly into the hole, cavity or hollowed area to surround or partially surround the seed (which reads on claim 5). Chen teaches the seed coating composition can be applied to or mixed into the soil using various methods. Some methods include but are not limited to creating a hole in the soil with pressurized water then introducing the seed coating composition into the hole with pressurized air, removing small plugs from the soil and introducing the seed coating composition into the hole, which reads on part a of claim 8. The instant specification disclose calcium carbonate as a carrier in the composition (para 0054 of instant specification) and Chen teaches the seed coating composition also comprise a filler which include calcium carbonate, which reads on the claim 7 wherein the composition comprises a carrier. The instant specification disclose bioactive agent can be herbicide or plant growth regulator (para 0049 of instant specification) and Chen teaches the seed coating composition comprises one or more herbicides or plant growth regulators, which reads on the bioactive ingredient in claim 10. Chen also teaches when the coating composition is acting as a wetting agent, the polymer utilized is generally associated with lower molecular weight which can be less than 100,000 daltons. Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches agglomerating the seeds with an agglomerating agent such as binder or adhesive before applying the seed coating composition because agglomeration of seed can aid in the application of the seed coating composition. Chen also teaches that the coating compositions promote seedling establishment and plant growth. (see e.g., Abstract; Field of Invention; Claims; Para 0007; 0033; 0017; 0020; 0023; 0035; 0044; 0051-0057; 0056; 0063; Entire Document).
The teachings of Chen have been set forth above.
While Chen discloses that when the coating composition is acting as a wetting agent, the polymer utilized (e.g., guar gum) is generally associated with lower molecular weight which can be less than 100,000 daltons, Chen does not expressly teach guar gum having an average molecular weight of between 8000 and 30,000 daltons as recited in instant claims. Chen also does not expressly teach the concentration of the guar gum in the composition, wherein said composition is a liquid composition or in the form of a granule or micro granule. Chen also does not expressly teach the composition further comprising a plant biostimulant and method step recited in claim 8 b. However, these deficiencies are addressed by Ji et al.
Ji also teaches a method for increasing the growth of a plant comprising the step of contacting a seed of said plant with a composition comprising a cationic guar, which is type of guar gum, and preferably having an average molecular weight of between about 10,000 and 50,000 daltons, and wherein the method comprises coating the seed of said plant with said composition, and wherein said composition is a liquid composition or a solid composition, and wherein the solid composition can be in the form of granules or microgranules. Ji teaches low molecular weight guars can be obtained by harvesting guar beans which are still at an early developmental stage such that the harvested guar beans contain low molecular weight natural guar gums. Ji teaches wherein the method comprises from 5 wt% to 35 wt% of guar gum/cationic guar gum based on the total weight of the composition which read on the claimed amounts of 10 wt% to 40 wt% and 20 wt% to 40 wt%. Ji teaches wherein the method comprises at least the steps of a) administering said composition to the soil in which said plant is cultivated and b) applying the seed of said plant to the soil so that the seed of said plant comes into contact with said composition, which read on the method step recited in claim 8. Ji teaches the composition comprises plant biostimulants which affect plant growth, wherein plant biostimulants are used to treat crops for their ability to increase growth rates, decrease pest plant growth and increase stress tolerance. (see entire document; abstract; [0010-0013]; [0019]; [0042-0048]; [0050-0067]; Examples; claims).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have combined the teachings of Chen and Ji and include a native guar gum having an average molecular weight of between 8000 and 30,000 daltons in the seed coating composition of Chen. As discussed supra, Chen discloses that when the coating composition is acting as a wetting agent, the polymer utilized (e.g., guar gum) is generally associated with lower molecular weight which can be less than 100,000 daltons, and Ji teaches a plant growth composition comprising a cationic guar, which is type of guar gum, which preferably has an average molecular weight of between about 10,000 and 50,000 daltons. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the guar gum taught by Chen with a low molecular weight such as the claimed molecular of 8000 to 30,000 daltons because the combination of Chen and Ji suggests using guar gum having the claimed molecular weight. Further, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to obtain and utilize specifically a natural/native guar gum having low molecular weight because, as mentioned above, Ji teaches low molecular weight guars can be obtained by harvesting guar beans which are still at an early developmental stage such that the harvested guar beans contain low molecular weight natural guar gums. Therefore, the use of native guar gum having the claimed molecular weight would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in view of the teachings of Chen and Ji.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have combined the teachings of Chen and Ji and include the guar gum in the composition of Chen having the claimed concentration. While Chen teaches use of guar gum in the composition, Chen is silent on the specific concentration/amount of guar gum in the composition. Ji also teaches composition for plant growth comprising guar gum and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to look towards the teachings of Ji for the amounts of guar gum to use in the composition and determine an amount which is optimal for plant growth. 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).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have combined the teachings of Chen and Ji and formulate the composition of Chen in the form of a liquid or a solid granule as taught in Ji. One would have been motivated to do so because Ji discloses that compositions comprising guar gum for plant growth can be formulated in the form of liquid or in the form of a solid granule. Thus, absence any unexpected effect, it would have been obvious to formulate the composition in a form which is well known in the art as suggested by the Ji reference.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have combined the teachings of Chen and Ji and apply the composition of Chen in the method taught by Ji and recited in claim 8. As discussed supra, Chen teaches the seed coating composition can be applied to or mixed into the soil using various methods. Some methods include but are not limited to creating a hole in the soil with pressurized water then introducing the seed coating composition into the hole with pressurized air, removing small plugs from the soil and introducing the seed coating composition into the hole, which reads on part a of claim 8. Chen does not expressly teach that the seed is applied to the soil after the administration of the composition to the soil, however, Ji teaches wherein the method comprises at least the steps of a) administering said composition to the soil in which said plant is cultivated and b) applying the seed of said plant to the soil so that the seed of said plant comes into contact with said composition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a method of applying guar gum containing composition which is known in the art as suggested by Ji. Moreover, the seed can be applied to the soil either before or after administration of the composition comprising guar gum and one skilled in the art would have readily envisioned using either method from the limited options.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have combined the teachings of Chen and Ji and further include a plant biostimulant in the composition of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so because Ji teaches the composition containing guar gum also comprises plant biostimulants which affect plant growth, wherein plant biostimulants are used to treat crops for their ability to increase growth rates, decrease pest plant growth and increase stress tolerance. Chen also teaches the coating compositions promote seedling establishment and plant growth and therefore it would have been obvious to include a biostimulant which has the ability to increase plant growth.
With respect to the claimed limitations wherein guar gum is provided in an amount to enhance root growth and root length and increase height of the seedlings, as discussed supra, Chen teaches that the coating compositions promote seedling establishment and plant growth. Further, Ji also discloses that guar gum enhances root growth, root length and height of seedlings (see e.g., summary of invention; 0043; Examples in Ji et al.). Therefore, absence any evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an amount of guar gum which is optimal for promoting seedling establishment and plant growth during routine experimentation because both Chen and Ji teach guar gum having a result effective parameter, which is that guar gum promotes plant and seedling growth.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0220454 A1) in view of Ji et al. (WO2016101862) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-13 and 17-18 above and further in view of Dou (“Why should use defoamer for agricultural?” Dec. 10, 2018, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-should-use-defoamer-agricultural-rechie-dou).
The above cited references do not teach the composition further comprises a defoamer. However, Dou cures this deficiency.
Dou teaches the use of defoamer in agriculture because in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, harmful foams are generated for different reasons, affecting production and use. Dou teaches the addition of defoamers is the most direct and effective solution. (see entire document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have combined the teachings of Chen, Ji and Dou and further include defoamer in the composition of Chen. Chen teaches the composition can include fertilizers and pesticides (see e.g. claim 6) and Dou teaches that in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, harmful foams are generated for different reasons, affecting production and use. Dou teaches the addition of defoamers is the most direct and effective solution. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include defoamer in the composition of Chen and have a reasonable expectation of success.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant argued that neither Chen nor Ji teach or suggest the use of low molecular weight guars to enhance root growth, root length or seedling height.
In response, as discussed supra, Chen teaches that the coating compositions promote seedling establishment and plant growth. Chen teaches that the polymer utilized (e.g., guar gum) is generally associated with lower molecular weight which can be less than 100,000 daltons. Ji also teaches a method for increasing the growth of a plant comprising the step of contacting a seed of said plant with a composition comprising a cationic guar, which is type of guar gum, and preferably having an average molecular weight of between about 10,000 and 50,000 daltons (low molecular weight guars). Further, Ji also discloses that guar gum enhances root growth, root length and height of seedlings. Thus, the cited prior art does suggest that the use of low molecular weight guars can be used to enhance root growth, root length or seedling height. Additionally, the combination of the cited references render obvious to method steps recited in the instant claims and the amount of guar gum and therefore, the method taught by the prior art would necessarily result in enhanced root growth, root length or seedling height.
Applicant argued that Ji relies on the use of low molecular weight guars that are chemically modified cationic guars to enhance root length rather than native guars.
In response, the examiner reiterates that Chen teaches that the coating compositions comprising low molecular weight native guar promote seedling establishment and plant growth, which encompasses root growth, root length or seedling height. Chen teaches that the polymer utilized (e.g., guar gum) is generally associated with lower molecular weight which can be less than 100,000 daltons. In Ji et al, while the low molecular weight guar is cationic guar and not native guar, Ji also teaches cationic guar promotes plant growth, which is also suggested in Chen relating to native guar. Thus, the combination of these references strongly suggests that guar (native or cationic) would promote plant growth which would encompass root growth, root length or seedling height.
Applicant again argued that the specification (Table 1 and 2) disclose native guar gum with a molecular weight of 24,000 daltons demonstrated significantly longer roots through low molecular weight guar treatment than high molecular weight guar treatment having a molecular weight of approximately 2,500,00-3,000,000 daltons.
In response, firstly the examiner argues that the prior art already teaches having low molecular weight guar gum, i.e., less than 100,000 daltons, and therefore applicant’s argument is not found persuasive as the prior art already teaches low molecular weight guar gum. Further, applicant’s comparison does not appear to be a single variable comparison because the low molecular weight guar is used at 20 wt% and high molecular guar is used at only 1 wt%. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI SAEED whose telephone number is (571)272-2371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 5712725539. 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.
/A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616