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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-5 and 8-10 in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant request that claim 11 be joined with the claims in group I. In the restriction requirement, Group 11 is in Group IV, directed to a method to utilize a new composition comprising a synergistically activity effective amount of a family of aquatic plants duckweed. This method varies in scope from the elected invention in Group I and the steps of performing the method of the inventions in Group I and Group IV are unrelated. Claim 11 will not be rejoined.
Claims 6, 7, and 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 13, 2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Claims 6, 7, and 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Priority
This application claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/409,507 filed September 23, 2022 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/251,864 filed October 04/2021.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of minor informalities. In line 4 of the Abstract, after “kelp etc.” the conjunction “And” is capitalized. The conjunction “and” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
In line 6 of the Abstract, it is unclear the metes and bounds of DuckWeek.Bio Concentrated Products”. This will be addressed further in the 112 rejections below.
In line 7 of the Abstract, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
In line 8 of the Abstract, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
In line 8 of the Abstract, the term “Cytokinins” is capitalized. The term “cytokinins should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
In line 10 of the Abstract, the term “ratio” is misspelled. It is spelled “ration”. Correction is required.
In line 11 of the Abstract, the phrase “Aquatic Plants” is capitalized. The phrase “aquatic plants” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: improper capitalization and misspelling. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 4, the conjunction “And” is capitalized. The conjunction “and” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 6, “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products” is capitalized. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrate Products”, however, it should not be capitalized. The metes and bounds of “Duckweed.Bio Concentrate Products” will be addressed further in the 112 rejections below.
Claim 1, line 7, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 7, recites “having an a Auxin IAA or IBA”. There is a double article. The claim should recite “having an Auxin IAA or IBA”. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 8, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 8, the term “Cytokinins” is capitalized. The term “cytokinins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 10, the term “ratio” is misspelled. It is spelled “ration”. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 11, the phrase “Aquatic Plants” is capitalized. The phrase “aquatic plants” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 11, the phrase “and or” needs a punctuation mark. The phrase should be “and/or”. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 14, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 14, the term “Cytokinins” is capitalized. The term “cytokinins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 2, line 1, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 2, line 1, the term “Cytokinins” is capitalized. The term “cytokinins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 3, line 1, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 3, line 1, the term “Cytokinins” is capitalized. The term “cytokinins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 4, line 1, the term “Auxin” is capitalized. The term “auxin” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 4, line 1, the term “Cytokinins” is capitalized. The term “cytokinins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 4, line 2, “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products” is capitalized. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrate Products”, however, it should not be capitalized. The metes and bounds of “Duckweed.Bio Concentrate Products” will be addressed further in the 112 rejections below.
Claim 5, lines 1-2, “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products” is capitalized. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrate Products”, however, it should not be capitalized. The metes and bounds of “Duckweed.Bio Concentrate Products” will be addressed further in the 112 rejections below.
Claim 5, line 4, the claim recites “phytochemicals extracts”. The claim should recite “phytochemical extracts”. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 9, the term “Phytohormones” is capitalized. The term “phytohormones” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claims 5, line 11, the term “Auxins” is capitalized. The term “auxins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 11, the term “Cytokinins” is capitalized. The term “cytokinins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 11, the term “Abscisic Acid” is capitalized. The term “abscisic acid” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 11, the term “Gibberellins” is capitalized. The term “gibberellins” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 12, the term “Ethylene” is capitalized. The term “ethylene” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 12, the term “Jasmonic Acid” is capitalized. The term “jasmonic acid” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 12, the term “Salicylic Acid” is misspelled and capitalized. The term “salicylic acid” should not be capitalized and the spelling should be corrected. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 12, the term “Brassinosteroids” is capitalized. The term “brassinosteroids” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 13, the term “Strigolactones” is capitalized. The term “strigolactones” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 18, after “Wolffiella sp.” the term “That” is capitalized. The term “that” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 5 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 8, line 1, the phrase “Aquatic Plant” is capitalized. The term “aquatic plant” should not be capitalized. Correction is required.
Claim 8, line 2, “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products” is capitalized. It is unclear the metes and bounds of “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrate Products”, however, it should not be capitalized. The metes and bounds of “Duckweed.Bio Concentrate Products” will be addressed further in the 112 rejections below.
Claim 8, line 2 recites “about 0.01 lt./ha”. Line 3 recites “about 2.5 L/ha”. For consistency, the measurement should be the same, either “lt./ha or L/ha”. Liters per hectare is conventionally abbreviated as “L/ha”.
Claim 8, line 3, the term “dossing” is misspelled. It should be spelled “dosing”. Correction is required.
Claim 8, line 6, the term “In” is capitalized. The term “in” should not be capitalized.
Claim 8, line 8, there is a missing period (.) after “desired results”. Correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 8 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. As such, claims 5 and 8 will not be further treated on the merits. However, the examiner will reject the claims under 112(b) because if Applicant corrects the dependency of the claims, the indefinite issues can be corrected also.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation from the original specification and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, line 2, the term "like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The claim recites “crop plants and non-crop plants like”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It cannot be determined if ornamental plants, industrial material…kelp are a part of the claim.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4 and 5, the term "etc." renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "etc."), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear what is meant or covered by the term “etc.”
Regarding claim 1, line 5, the term "as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim recites “aquaculture as hydroponic systems, etc.” It is unclear if hydroponic systems, etc. is part of the claim.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products. It is unclear what is contained in DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products. According to page 13, paragraph 45, DuckWeed.Bio Product is an aquatic plant concentrate extract “product name” obtained from a mixture of Duckweed plants of the Family Araceae originally known as Lemnaceae and other aquatic plant combinations to compound customized products to agricultural needs. “DuckWeed.Bio” will and is sold as an Organic Concentrated Bio-Active Vitamin-Phytohormone Fertilizer product that enhances plant growth, productivity, reduction of abiotic stress and improves yield”. Based on this description, DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products is a tradename. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a product manufactured from Duckweed plants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Applicant should claim the ingredients of the product used in the method, not the tradename, as currently claimed.
Claim 1 recites “depending on the target crop customized formulation product and products having an Auxin IAA or IBA or a combination comprises of Auxins to Cytokinins by biological activity measurement approximate concentration ratio of at least 10:1 to 30:1 and up to 100:1 to 500:1 but not limited to as synergistically can reach much higher levels of the ratio beyond 1000:1 depending on the compounding formulation mixes of Aquatic Plants and or its extracts based on the desired composition of the products”. It is unclear what is being claimed. It is unclear if the Duckweed.Bio Concentrated Products comprises Auxin IAA or IBA or a combination comprises Auxins to Cytokinins at the concentration ratio claimed or if Auxin IAA or IBA or combination comprising Auxin to Cytokinins are an additional component added to the DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products. Applicant should clarify the metes and bounds of this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 1, line 9, the phrase “but not limited to" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim recites “synergistically can reach much higher levels of ratio beyond 1000:1 depending on the compounding formulation mixes of Aquatic Plants and or its extracts based on the desired composition of the products and target plants or crops require comprising also other phytohormone groups or classes of plant hormones that can act in combination as synergically with Auxins and Cytokinins”. It is unclear if “synergistically can reach much higher levels of ratio beyond 1000:1 depending on the compounding formulation mixes of Aquatic Plants and or its extracts based on the desired composition of the products and target plants or crops require comprising also other phytohormone groups or classes of plant hormones that can act in combination as synergically with Auxins and Cytokinins” is part of the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “higher levels of ration beyond 1000:1, and the claim also recites “10:1 to 30:1 and up to 100:1 to 500:1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites the limitation "A method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, the article in claim 2 should be “The method”. The claim should be rewritten to recite “The method according to claim 1…is at least 10:1 to 30:1”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the Auxins to Cytokinins ratio of the seaweed" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite “seaweed” in the claim. Therefore, there is no auxin to cytokinins ratio of seaweed”. Claim 1 should recite “seaweed” in order to claim it or recite it in claim 2. As such, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the Auxins to Cytokinins ratio of the seaweed” in claim 2.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites the limitation "A method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2. Therefore, the article in claim 3 should be “The method”. The claim should be rewritten to recite “The method according to claim 2…is approximately 30:1”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the Auxins to Cytokinins ratio of the seaweed" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2, which is dependent from claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite “seaweed” in the claim. Claim 1 should recite “seaweed” in order to claim it or recite it in claim 3. As such, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the Auxins to Cytokinins ratio to the seaweed” in claim 2.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites the limitation "A method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is dependent from claim 3. Therefore, the article in claim 4 should be “The method”. The claim should be rewritten to recite “The method according to claim 3…than 1000:1 but not limited”.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products. It is unclear what is contained in DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products. According to page 13, paragraph 45, DuckWeed.Bio Product is an aquatic plant concentrate extract “product name” obtained from a mixture of Duckweed plants of the Family Araceae originally known as Lemnaceae and other aquatic plant combinations to compound customized products to agricultural needs. “DuckWeed.Bio” will and is sold as an Organic Concentrated Bio-Active Vitamin-Phytohormone Fertilizer product that enhances plant growth, productivity, reduction of abiotic stress and improves yield”. Based on this description, DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products is a tradename. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a product manufactured from Duckweed plants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Applicant has to claim the ingredients of the product used in the method, not the tradename, as currently claimed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “concentration of aquatic plants including ratio level above than 1000:1 but not limited”. This recitation is unclear. It cannot be determined what is meant by this recitation. Applicant should clarify what is meant by this recitation.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “including ratio level above 1000:1, and the claim also recites “100:1 to 500:1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites the limitation "A method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is dependent from claims 1 to 4. Therefore, the article in claim 5 should be “The method”. The claim should be rewritten to recite “The method according to previous claims 1 to 4…crop plants, ornamental plants, etc.”.
Claim 5 contains the trademark/trade name DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated. It is unclear what is contained in DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated. According to page 13, paragraph 45, DuckWeed.Bio Product is an aquatic plant concentrate extract “product name” obtained from a mixture of Duckweed plants of the Family Araceae originally known as Lemnaceae and other aquatic plant combinations to compound customized products to agricultural needs. “DuckWeed.Bio” will and is sold as an Organic Concentrated Bio-Active Vitamin-Phytohormone Fertilizer product that enhances plant growth, productivity, reduction of abiotic stress and improves yield”. Based on this description, DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products is a tradename. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a product manufactured from Duckweed plants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Applicant has to claim the ingredients of the product used in the method, not the tradename, as currently claimed.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated natural organic biostimulant products" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, which recites “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products”. Claim 1 does not recite “natural organic biostimulant products”. As such, there is lack of antecedent basis for “natural organic biostimulant products”.
The term "valuable" in claim 5, lines 3 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "valuable" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art could not ascertain and interpret the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired as to what limits “valuable” sets in determining the scope of what it means.
In claim 5, line 8, Applicant recites the phrase “bioactive precursors that continue to be discovered”. This recitation is indefinite. It cannot be determined the metes and bounds of “bioactive precursors that continue to be discovered”.
Claim 5, lines 16 and 17, recite “Araceae Family (formally known as Lemanaceae family of plants)”. The use of parentheses renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations “formally known as Lemanaceae family of plants” within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 20, recites “the best available” to describe “non-GMO hydrophytes”. The use of the phrase “best available” is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what Applicant means by “the best available”. Applicant should clarify.
Claim 5, line 21, recites “the vascular macrophytes (Pteridophyte and Spermatophyte)”. The use of parentheses renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations “Pteridophyte and Spermatophyte” within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 24, recite “a small fraction (*1%)”. The use of parentheses renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations “*1%” within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, line 25, the term "but not limited" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim recites “as it can also include algae of different species micro or macro algae or kelp” It is unclear if “as it can also include algae of different species micro or macro algae or kelp” is part of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, line 26, the term "as well" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim recites “then all the selection customized formula is compounded and formulated into the product to improve composition and positive biological natural stimulation of growth and yield of crop plants.” It is unclear if “then all the selection customized formula is compounded and formulated into the product to improve composition and positive biological natural stimulation of growth and yield of crop plants” is part of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, line 28 the term "etc." renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "etc."), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear what is meant or covered by the term “etc.”
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites the limitation "A method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is dependent from claims 1 to 7. Therefore, the article in claim 8 should be “The method”. The claim should be rewritten to recite “The method according to claims 1 to 7…obtain the desired results”.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name DuckWeed Bio product extract. It is unclear what is contained in DuckWeed Bio product extract. According to page 13, paragraph 45, DuckWeed.Bio Product is an aquatic plant concentrate extract “product name” obtained from a mixture of Duckweed plants of the Family Araceae originally known as Lemnaceae and other aquatic plant combinations to compound customized products to agricultural needs. “DuckWeed.Bio” will and is sold as an Organic Concentrated Bio-Active Vitamin-Phytohormone Fertilizer product that enhances plant growth, productivity, reduction of abiotic stress and improves yield”. Based on this description, DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products is a tradename. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a product manufactured from Duckweed plants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Applicant has to claim the ingredients of the product used in the method, not the tradename, as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 8, line 6, the term "etc." renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "etc."), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear what is meant or covered by the term “etc.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "DuckWeed Bio product extract" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is dependent from claim 1, which recites “DuckWeed.Bio Concentrated Products”. Claim 1 does not recite “product extract”. As such, there is lack of antecedent basis for “product extract”.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites the limitation "A method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent from any of the preceding claims. Therefore, the article in claim 9 should be “The method”. The claim should be rewritten to recite “The method according to any of the preceding claims…total root biomass and surface”.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the limitation "A method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is dependent to any of claims 1 to 9. Therefore, the article in claim 9 should be “The method”. The claim should be rewritten to recite “The method according to any of the claims 1 to 9…but not limited”.
Regarding claim 10, line 2, the term "as well" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim recites “nitrogen balance index as well for the other nutrients.” It is unclear if “for the other nutrients and carbon retention that can go from 0.5 to 5.0 fold times but not limited” is part of the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of “but not limited”. This recitation is unclear. It cannot be determined what is meant by this recitation. Applicant should clarify what is meant by “but not limited”.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim Interpretation
For compact prosecution purposes, the claims are being interpreted as a method for biologically stimulating growth of and/or regulate enhancing performance plant…comprising applying to the plants a duckweed product and a product comprising an Auxin IAA or IBA or a combination comprising auxins to cytokinins as a concentration ratio of at least 10:1 to 30:1 and up to 100:1 to 500:1. Claims 5 and 8 will not be examined on the merits because of improper claim dependencies, as indicated hereinabove.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Pulido Thesis (2016, The Pennsylvania State University, Pulido) in view of the Crouch Publication (1992, Journal of Applied Phycology, Crouch et al.), the Kularathne Publication (2021, Current Agriculture Research Journal, Kularathne et al.) and the Liquid Seaweed Concentrate Publication (2012, Kelpak).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a method for biologically stimulating growth of and/or regulate enhancing performance plant…comprising applying to the plants a duckweed product and a product comprising an Auxin IAA or IBA or a combination comprising auxins to cytokinins as a concentration ratio of at least 10:1 to 30:1 and up to 100:1 to 500:1.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Pulido teaches duckweed, an aquatic plant, can grow in wastewater, sustainable treat water by accumulating nutrients and generate a by-product capable of replacing or supplementing commercial fertilizers. Five genera of duckweed are known, Lemna…Wolfia and Wollfeilla, and 38 species have been identified to date (iii, Abstract, paragraph 3). Pulido teaches in the study duckweed was evaluated as a soil amendment in comparison with commercial fertilizer, and in combination with commercial fertilizer (iv, Abstract, first paragraph).
Pulido teaches complementing inorganic fertilization with organic amendments such as compost or duckweed could reduce fertilization costs considerably and enhance plant yield at the same time. This approach is called “Integrated Nutrient Management” and is getting more attention by farmers and agricultural government programs around the world (page 11, General description, paragraph 1).
Pulido teaches crop response to soil amendments was analyzed based on plant yield and plant nutrient composition (page 51, paragraph 1).
Pulido teaches as can be seed in Table 3-5, no significant differences were observed between the means of the dry masses of harvested beet, tomato, and sorghum for the different soil amendments (page 51, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 9, Pulido teaches the duckweed and mix treatments generated higher biomass means than the control of all groups (page 51, paragraph 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 52, Table 3-5).
Pulido teaches tomato and sorghum plants treated with duckweed, mix and double duckweed had more N than those treated with conventional fertilizer (page 53, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 10, Pulido teaches that it can be concluded that using duckweed as a primary soil amendment or as a complement of another treatment (fertilizer in this case), may improve the nutrient residue in the soil after a fertilization period. This is a positive side effect that is not usually achieved by application of commercial fertilizers alone based on the N needs of the crops. Supplying the amount of N needed by plants with duckweed, generates, at no additional cost, the addition of important nutrients such as P, K, Mg, Mn, Ca, and Cu among others (page 55, first full paragraph.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Pulido does not specifically disclose the addition of a product having an auxin IAA or IBA or a combination comprised of auxins to cytokinins with a concentration ratio of at least 10:1 to 30:1 and up to 100:1 to 500:1 or the auxins to cytokinins ratio of the seaweed extract is at least 10:1 to 30:1. It is for this reason the Crouch Publication, the Kularathne Publication, and the Liquid Seaweed Concentrate Publication are added as secondary references.
Crouch et al. teach seaweed concentrate prepared from Ecklonia maxima (Osbeck) Papenfuss, when applied as a soil drench, significantly improved the growth of tomato seedlings. In a second experiment SWC-treated plants exhibited early fruit ripening and a total fruit fresh weight increase of 17% (Abstract).
Crouch et al. teach plant treated with 0.4% SWC and 1% SWC were significantly larger than control plants (page 292, col. 2, Results, Seedling establishment experiment, paragraph 1).
Crouch et al. teach that SWC stimulated early fruit ripening and production. Nearly 60% of all the first fruit picked, and over 50% of all the second, were from plants treated with 0.2% and 0.4% SWC, respectively. Crouch et al. teach when applied as either a root drench or foliar spray SWC increased the total fresh weight of these fruit. An increase in fresh weight of 28% and diameter of 10% (page 293, col. 1-2, Yield experiment).
Kularathne et al. teach the phytohormones recognized in seaweed extracts are auxins, cytokinin, gibberellins, abscisic acid, ethyl and auxins, which are accountable for elongation of plant tissue growth and apical dominance, cell division (page 53, col. 1, paragraph 1),
Kularathne et al. teach in Table 2 Auxin and cytokinin hormone composition of seaweed.
PNG
media_image2.png
182
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The Liquid Seaweed Concentrate Publication teaches the source of Kelpak is fresh Ecklonia maxima seaweed high in natural auxins. The activity Auxin:cytokinin ratio is >300:1 promotes prolific lateral root development (page 1). The Liquid Seaweed Concentrate Publication teaches that auxin dominance promotes rooting (page 2).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pulido, Crouch et al., Kularathne et al. and the Kelpak Liquid Seaweed Concentrate Publication and use duckweed and another product that comprises an auxin IAA or IBA or a combination comprised of Auxins to Cytokinins in a method to stimulate plant growth. Pulido teaches duckweed and mix treatments of duckweed and fertilizer generated higher biomass means than the control of all groups of plants, including tomatoes. Pulido teaches tomato and sorghum plants treated with duckweed, mix and double duckweed had more N than those treated with conventional fertilizer. Crouch et al. teach seaweed concentrate prepared from Ecklonia maxima (Osbeck) Papenfuss, when applied as a soil drench, significantly improved the growth of tomato seedlings. In a second experiment SWC-treated plants exhibited early fruit ripening and a total fruit fresh weight increase of 17%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate a composition comprising duckweed and seaweed, which is a composition that comprises a combination of auxins and cytokinins, as taught by Kularathne et al. and the Kelpak Liquid Seaweed Concentrate Publication, because they each provide increased yield of tomato plants. It is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to combine compositions that are used for the same purpose to increase the efficacy of the compositions. In view of In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1980), it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art, thus claims that requires no more than mixing together two or three conventional plant growth regulators/stimulators set forth prima facie obvious subject matter. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate the composition used in a method to increase yield, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the limitations of the combination comprised of auxins to cytokinins with a concentration ratio of at least 10:1 to 30:1 and up to 100:1 to 500:1 or the auxins to cytokinins ratio of the seaweed extract is at least 10:1 to 30:1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation and optimization to determine the ratio of auxins to cytokinins in the products. Kularathne et al. teach the phytohormones recognized in seaweed extracts are auxins, cytokinin, gibberellins, abscisic acid, ethyl and auxins, which are accountable for elongation of plant tissue growth and apical dominance, cell division. Kularathne et al. teaches the amounts of auxin and cytokinin in various seaweed species. The Kelpak Liquid Seaweed Concentrate Publication teaches that the ratio of auxin:cytokinin is >300:1 and provides data of various concentration ratios of auxins to cytokinins. Based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to experiment with the amount of auxin and cytokinin in the formulations to promote plant growth. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references, especially within the broad ranges instantly claimed) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would like to remind Applicant about information regarding assistance that is available to a Pro Se Inventor. The USPTO has varying resource including the USPTO’s Pro Se Assistance Center and information about filing a patent application on your own. The Pro Se Assistance Center provides outreach and education to applicants (also known as "pro se" applicants) who file patent applications without the assistance of a registered patent attorney or agent. Here is a link to the webpage: Pro Se Assistance Center | USPTO.
The link to “Filing a patent application on your own” webpage: Filing a patent application on your own | USPTO. Particularly, helpful under ‘Pro se resources’ is the “During examination” tab, Responding to Office Actions.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614