--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 .
Applicant's response dated May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application claims benefit in provisional application 63/224,231 filed on 07/21/2021.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 12-20, 32, and 33 are pending. Claims 2-11, 21-31, 34, and 35 were canceled. Claims 1, 14, 17, 32, and 33 were amended. Claims 1, 12-20, 32, and 33 are examined.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
Objection to claim 17 is withdrawn because Nitrogen was replaced with nitrogen.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
Rejections of claims 1, 12-16, 18-20, 32, and 33 are withdrawn because rejections were obviated with claim amendments.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. l 12(b):
(b) CONCLUSION-The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. l 12(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (preAIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites "a coffee powder that includes nitrogen content around 2.5%". The
claim is indefinite because it does not provide units of the concentration of nitrogen in the coffee.
Applicant traversed the rejection because the claims recite the concentration of nitrogen as percent.
This argument is not persuasive because a percentage is not unit. A unit is mass/mass, volume/volume, mass/volume, mole/mole. The scope of a concentration expressed as a percentage without units is indefinite.
Maintained Claims Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over des Garennes (US
7,581,684 B2 Date of Patent September 1, 2009) and Verschoor (WO 2017/058009 Al
Published April 6, 2017).
The claims are drawn to a method of treatment and maintaining a turf.
The teachings of des Garennes are related to a towable device for treating and
maintaining turf, which includes at least one roller and manifold assembly that further includes at
least one injection head for directing periodic jets of liquid and at least one additive material into
the ground, where the at least one injection head creates a discharge pattern greater than 30
inches in width. Also included is a liquid supply system for supplying pressurized liquid to the at
least one injection head, an additive supply system for introducing the at least one additive
material to the liquid within the at least one injection head, and a control system for controlling
discharge from the at least one injection head (Abstract). Additionally, a method of treating and
maintaining turf is encompassed, which includes the steps of producing successive jets of
pressurized liquid, directing the successive jets of pressurized liquid toward the ground, creating
a distribution pattern greater than 30 inches in width along a path of travel, and where the
successive jets of pressurized liquid are at spaced intervals along the path of travel, producing
successive charges of at least one additive material, maintaining each charge of the at least one
additive material isolated from the liquid until a corresponding jet has been produced, and
introducing a charge of the at least one additive material into the corresponding jet as the
corresponding jet is directed toward the ground (column 2 lines 10-25). A substance, such as a
liquid, solid or air, may be used to effectively drill a hole in the soil. This hole may have a
diameter in the range 0.1 to 2.0 inches. Substantially simultaneously, the created hole may be
filled with a soil amendment. Upon filling, the surface of the soil is left substantially smooth,
with minimal soil disruption and displacement (column 3 lines 37-43).
Des Garennes does not teach a plurality of sifters.
The teachings of Verschoor are related to a device for treating soil with a liquid and sand
(Abstract). Although the present invention is focused on improving the injection of wet sand, it
will be understood that together with the sand, other substances may be injected such as
earth, calcined clay, seeds, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, root stimulants, fertilizers,
and other substances (page 4 lines 2-5). In an embodiment, the device comprises a plurality of
funnels defined at a bottom of each sand tray for guiding the sand into the sand supply tubes each
bottom end of a funnel has a sand supply tube connected to it. The funnels are arranged in a row
and achieve an effective and substantially equal distribution of the sand (last paragraph on page
4). In an embodiment, each sand tray comprises a sieve. This allows the use of uncleaned sand
which is generally available (page 5 lines 1-2). In an embodiment, the device comprises or more
sand trays positioned downstream from the sand storage compartment (page 6 lines 7-8).
The teachings of des Garennes and Verschoor are related to devices for treating soil with
fillers and it would have been obvious to have combined their teachings because they are in the
same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated a turf
comprising the steps of producing successive jets of pressurized liquid, directing the successive
jets of pressurized liquid toward the ground, creating a distribution pattern greater than 30 inches
in width along a path of travel, and where the successive jets of pressurized liquid are at spaced
intervals along the path of travel, producing successive charges of at least one additive material,
maintaining each charge of the at least one additive material isolated from the liquid until a
corresponding jet has been produced, and introducing a charge of the at least one additive
material into the corresponding jet as the corresponding jet is directed toward the ground,
wherein the liquid is used to drill a hole in the soil having a diameter in the range 0.1 to 2.0
inches, with a reasonable expectation of success because des Garennes teaches said method of
treating turf.
The claimed step of producing successive high-pressure jets of pressurized liquid is met
because the prior art method teaches producing successive jets of pressurized liquid.
The claimed step of "directing said successive jets" is met because prior art teaches
directing the successive jets of pressurized liquid toward the ground, creating a distribution
pattern greater than 30 inches in width along a path of travel, and where the successive jets of
pressurized liquid are at spaced intervals along the path of travel, producing successive charges
of at least one additive material, wherein the liquid is used to drill a hole in the soil having a
diameter in the range 0.1 to 2.0 inches.
The step of "producing successive charges" is met because the prior art teaches
producing successive charges of at least one additive material.
The step of "maintaining each charge" is met because the prior art teaches maintaining
each charge of the at least one additive material isolated from the liquid until a corresponding jet
has been produced, and introducing a charge of the at least one additive material into the
corresponding jet as the corresponding jet is directed toward the ground.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Garennes to include
a plurality of sifters for the additive material to pass through before the hopper as taught by
Verschoor. One of skill would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the additive
particle size and prevent clogging of the device by clumps.
The step of "introducing a charge" is met because the prior art teaches introducing a
charge of the at least one additive material into the corresponding jet as the corresponding jet is
directed toward the ground.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over des Garennes and Verschoor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams
(WO 98/12154 Published March 26, 1998).
The teachings of des Garennes and Verschoor are relied upon as summarized above.
They do not teach a superabsorbent polymer.
The teachings of Williams are related to a solid additive comprising a superabsorbent
polymer and growth-promoting additive. The superabsorbent polymer is a polyacrylate and is in
a particulate form, and the growth-promoting additive is absorbed therein (Abstract). The soil
additive is in the form of particles (page 5 lines 16-26). As a result of inherent water absorbent
properties, superabsorbent polymers tend to swell on contact with water. The super absorbent
polymer, after treatment for use in the soil additive of the present invention, preferably has an
absorption capacity index (ACI) that is in the range of about 4-50. The ACI is defined as:
(weight of water saturated gel polymer - polymer dry weight)/polymer dry wt. The ACI of an
anionic super absorbent polymer, such as the polyacrylate polymers, may be decreased by
crosslinking of the polymer with cations. Examples of chemical compounds that may be added to
the aqueous solution to effect cross-linking include soluble salts of at least one of an alkaline
metal, an alkaline earth metal, aluminum, copper (II), iron (III) and zinc. Examples of such salts
include calcium chloride, calcium nitrate, dicalcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate,
magnesium chloride, magnesium nitrate, magnesium sulphate potassium nitrate, dipotassium
phosphate, superphosphate, disodium phosphate, barium chloride, barium nitrate, disodium
phosphate, trisodium phosphate, sodium nitrate, aluminum sulphate, aluminum nitrate, zinc
sulphate and zinc nitrate. In addition, salts of ammonium ions, e.g. diammonium phosphate,
triammonium phosphate and especially ammonium nitrate may be used. Calcium hydroxide may
also be included to aid in deswelling the SAP. In preferred embodiments of the present invention
the cation used is potassium, calcium or ammonium or a combination of these cations, and the
anion is nitrate. The amounts of cross-linking agent and growth-promoting additive are adjusted
so that the absorption capacity index (ACI) of the super absorbent gel polymer is preferably in
the range of about 4-50, as indicated above. This is substantially less than ACI typically
characteristic of super absorbent polymers, which is substantially above 100 (pages 9 and 10).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used
superabsorbent polymer particles having a growth promoting additive absorbed the polymer, as
the turf treatment in the method of des Garennes modified by Verchoor, with a reasonable
expectation of success because Williams teaches a soil treatment comprising superabsorbent
polymer particles having a growth promoting additive absorbed in the polymer, wherein the
treatment is in the particulate form. The selection of a known material based on its suitable for its
intended purpose supports obviousness. The "wherein" clause in claim 15 describes the effect of
the filler on the additive. The growth promoting additive and the SAP meet the limitations of the
filler and the additive, where the growth promoting additive can be considered the additive or the
filler, and the SAP can be considered the additive or the filler. The two components increasing
the handling time of each other, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to have used superabsorbent polymer
particles having urea absorbed therein because Williams teaches forming the particles
comprising a growth-promoting additive absorbed in the particles wherein the additive is urea
(page 6 lines 11-13). Williams teaches that a high concentration of urea in the sodium
polyacrylate (SAP) increases its rewet ACI. By incorporation of high urea concentration in the
gel structure it is possible to achieve nitrogen levels not achievable using super absorbent
polymer polymerization processes with use of nitrogen containing salts (page 11 lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 16, the growth promoting additive such as urea provides nutrient
advantages to the soil because it is a known fertilizer.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, it would have been obvious to have formed the SAP by
crosslinking the polymer with cations comprising iron, copper, and zinc, with a reasonable
expectation of success because Williams teaches that the SAP is formed by crosslinking a
polymer such as polyacrylate polymers with cations comprising iron, copper, and zinc.
Regarding claim 20, the crosslinking cations iron, copper, and zinc are considered fillers
and the SAP is considered the additive. By crosslinking the polymer chains, the cations enhance
the water holding abilities of the polymer. A crosslinked polymer holds more water compared to
a polymer that is not crosslinked.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over des
Garennes and Verschoor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams and
Ferguson (GB 2 067 545 A Published January 23, 1980).
The claims further define the filler component.
The teachings of des Garennes are relied upon as summarized above, which does not
teach a filler as claimed.
The teachings of Williams are relied upon as summarized above.
The teachings of Ferguson are related to free flowing granular fertilizer comprising
expanded, substantially oil-free coffee grounds as a carrier coated and impregnated with ureaformaldehyde condensation product, where the coffee grounds are obtained as a waste product from instant coffee manufacturers (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used superabsorbent polymer particles
having a growth promoting additive absorbed the polymer, as the turf treatment in the method of
des Garennes modified by Verschoor, with a reasonable expectation of success because Williams
teaches a soil treatment composition comprising superabsorbent polymer particles having a
growth promoting additive absorbed in the polymer, wherein the treatment is in the particulate
form. The selection of a known material based on its suitable for its intended purpose supports
obviousness. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to have applied Williams' particulate
composition using the device of des Garennes as modified by Verschoor because the device
would have been suitable for applying Williams' composition to the soil.
It would have been further obvious to have combined the superabsorbent polymer
particles having a growth-promoting additive absorbed therein as taught by Williams with a free
flowing granular fertilizer comprising coffee grounds as a carrier coated with a ureaformaldehyde condensation product, with a reasonable expectation of success because Ferguson teaches a free flowing granular fertilizer comprising coffee grounds as a carrier coated with a urea-formaldehyde condensation product and combining two compositions known to be useful for the same purpose to form a third composition suitable for use for the same purpose supports obviousness. Ferguson teaches that the fertilizer is a highly effective slow release fertilizer based on the use of a readily available waste material, as a carrier, that is using coffee grounds. The fertilizer has free-flowing properties and contains large amounts of nitrogen nutrient in a form which is slowly released to the soil (page 8 lines 55-59). Similarly, Williams teaches that the SAP particles comprising the growth promoting additive are intended to slowly release the additive over time into soil as soil alternates between wet and dry periods (page 13 lines 20-25). As evidenced by claims 32 and 33, coffee prevents unwanted hydration on the additive material from the ambient air. Therefore, coffee meets the limitation of filler in claim 14. The limitations of claim 17 are met because Ferguson teaches that coffee contains total nitrogen content of 2.82%, which renders the claimed concentration of around 2.5% obvious.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over des
Garennes, Verschoor, and Williams as applied to claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 above, and
further in view of Ferguson (GB 2 067 545 A Published January 23, 1980).
The claims further define the filler component.
The teachings of des Garennes, Verschoor, and Williams are relied upon as summarized
above, which do not teach a filler as claimed.
The teachings of Ferguson are related to free flowing granular fertilizer comprising
expanded, substantially oil-free coffee grounds as a carrier coated and impregnated with ureaformaldehyde condensation product, where the coffee grounds are obtained as a waste product from instant coffee manufacturers (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to have combined the superabsorbent polymer
particles having a growth-promoting additive absorbed therein as taught by Williams with a free
flowing granular fertilizer comprising coffee grounds as a carrier coated with a ureaformaldehyde condensation product, with a reasonable expectation of success because Ferguson teaches a free flowing granular fertilizer comprising coffee grounds as a carrier coated with a urea-formaldehyde condensation product and combining two compositions known to be useful for the same purpose to form a third composition suitable for use for the same purpose supports obviousness. Ferguson teaches that the fertilizer is a highly effective slow release fertilizer based on the use of a readily available waste material, as a carrier, that is using coffee grounds. The fertilizer has free-flowing properties and contains large amounts of nitrogen nutrient in a form which is slowly released to the soil (page 8 lines 55-59). Similarly, Williams teaches that the SAP particles comprising the growth promoting additive are intended to slowly release the additive over time into soil as soil alternates between wet and dry periods (page 13 lines 20-25).
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results
supports obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument submitted in the remarks dated May 26, 2026 were fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant’s argument that the combination of references fails to teach or suggest a soil additive comprising a SAP coupled with powdered coffee filler, where the powdered coffee filler prevents unwanted hydration of the SAP from ambient air, increasing handing time and provides a hydrophobic coating through coffee grounds oils, is not persuasive because the argument is based on limitations that are not claimed. Specifically, the claims do not require a SAP coupled with powdered coffee filler. The limitations that require the powdered coffee filler to prevent unwanted hydration of the SAP from ambient air, increasing handing time and provide a hydrophobic coating through coffee grounds oils describe properties of the SAP coupled with powdered coffee filler. These properties are also not claimed because they are properties of an unclaimed structure, which is a SAP coupled with powdered coffee filler.
Applicant’s argument that Ferguson’s teaching of substantially oil-free coffee grounds teaches away from the claimed invention is not persuasive because instant claims do not limit the coffee grounds by oil content. The claims do not require the SAP to have a hydrophobic coating formed by natural oils in the coffee grounds.
The characteristics of powdered coffee filler coupled with a SAP (listed on page 10 of remarks) are based on a limitation that is not claimed. It is noted that any characteristics and properties of claimed structure observed by the applicant would have been present in the prior art when the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims, unless there is evidence of unexpected results. In the instant case, arguments related to characteristics are not persuasive because the characteristics were observed in a structure that is not claimed. Although, claims are interpreted in view of the specification, it is improper to read limitations in to the claims.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The
examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights