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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demares et al., (US 2018/0242576 A1, Aug. 30, 2018) (hereinafter Demares) in view of Taganov et al., (US 2018/0237352 A1, Aug. 23, 2018) (hereinafter Taganov), as evidenced by Perez-Montano et al., (The Symbiotic Biofilm of Sinorhizobium fredii SMH12, Necessary for Successful Colonization and Symbiosis of Glycine max cv Osumi, Is Regulated by Quorum Sensing Systems and Inducing Flavonoids via NodD1, Aug 28, 2014) (hereinafter Perez-Montano).
Demares discloses compositions and methods for increasing the survivability of one or more beneficial microorganisms (i.e., increasing microorganism longevity) (Abstract). The disclosed embodiments relate to compositions and methods for enhancing plant growth ([0020]), “enhanced plant growth” means increased plant yield ([0048]), and the terms “plant(s)” and “plant part(s)” means all plants and plant populations, including seeds ([0049]). The composition comprises one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients such as plant signal molecules and beneficial microorganisms ([0017]). “Plant signal molecule(s)” may be used interchangeably with “plant growth-enhancing agent(s),” meaning any agent, both naturally occurring and synthetic that directly or indirectly activates or inactivates a plant biochemical pathway, resulting in increased or enhanced plant growth ([0038]). The beneficial microorganisms are diazotrophs (i.e., bacteria which are symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria) selected from the genera Rhizobium spp., Bradyrhizobium spp, or Sinorhizobium spp, such as Sinorhizobium fredii (i.e., a bacteria inoculant) ([0157]). Agriculturally beneficial ingredients include biostimulants ([0118]). Biostimulants may enhance metabolic or physiological processes such as nutrient delivery and examples include humic acids (e.g., potassium humate), fulvic acids, and combinations thereof ([0237]). Seeds are coated with one or more compositions of the invention ([0262]). The seed coating method comprises adding one or more microbially stabilizing compounds to a mixture comprising one or more antimicrobial compounds to inhibit the antimicrobial activity of the antimicrobial compound, adding one or more beneficial microorganisms to the mixture, and applying the mixture to a seed ([0263]). The method for coating a seed further comprises the step of adding one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients wherein, the step of adding one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients may occur before the step of adding one or more microorganisms to the mixture and may occur before the step of applying the mixture to a seed ([0265]). The compositions comprise a fungicide or a fertilizer ([0016]). Demares teaches that growth in plants such as soybeans depends on interactions between the plant and microorganisms that habitate the surrounding soil, like Rhizobiaceae and Bradyrhizobiaceae. The symbiosis between these bacteria and the legumes enables the legume to fix atmospheric nitrogen for plant growth, thus obviating a need for nitrogen fertilizers, thus the agricultural industry continues its efforts to exploit this biological relationship for improving plant yield ([0003]).
Demares differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the seed coating comprises CPFAPH.
However, Taganov discloses a fertilizer including the growth enhancing component co-polymer of fulvic acid and poly-metallic humates (CPFAPH) in the amount of from about 80% to about 90% by weight, based on a total weight of the fertilizer (Abstract). The fertilizer may be used in seed treatments ([0005]). CPFAPH, comprising fulvic acid and humic acid, is the main growth enhancing component of the fertilizer ([0019]). Humates are naturally occurring materials that contain humic acid and fulvic acids. Humic acid is a powerful promotant of beneficial fungi and can also stabilize nitrogen content in soil, allowing for improved nitrogen efficiency. Humates are the only known substance with the ability to hold onto all other nutrients in the soil, which allows for heightened nutrient absorption (i.e., a biostimulant) ([0017]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Demares discloses seed treatments comprising plant growth-enhancing agents such as biostimulants. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated CPFAPH into the composition of Demares since it is a known and effective plant growth-enhancing biostimulant as taught by Taganov.
Regarding the limitation of claims 1, 8, and 14 reciting wherein the first coating comprising CPFAPH is free of the bacteria inoculant/microorganism and the second layer comprising the bacteria inoculant/microorganism is free of CPFAPH, as discussed above, Demares teaches that the seed coating method comprises adding one or more beneficial microorganisms to a mixture, and applying the mixture to a seed. Further, the method also comprises the step of adding one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients wherein, the step of adding one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients may occur before the step of applying the mixture to a seed. Because Taganov teaches that CPFAPH is a plant growth-enhancing biostimulant (i.e., agriculturally beneficial ingredient), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have performed the step of applying CPFAPH, an agriculturally beneficial ingredient, to the seed (i.e., first layer) before the step of applying the mixture comprising the one or more beneficial microorganisms (i.e., second layer) to the seed. Thus, because the CPFAPH (i.e., first layer) is applied before and separately from the mixture comprising the one or more beneficial microorganisms (i.e., second layer), the method of Demares meets the claim limitation wherein the first coating comprising CPFAPH is free of the bacteria inoculant/microorganism and the second layer comprising the bacteria inoculant/microorganism is free of CPFAPH.
Regarding claim 3, Perez-Montano discloses Sinorhizobium fredii SMH12 by means of a unique key molecule, the flavonoid, efficiently forms biofilm, colonizes the legume roots and activates the synthesis of Nod factors, required for successful symbiosis with Glycine Max (Abstract). Accordingly, the seed coating of Demares comprising Sinorhizobium fredii is symbiotic for a Glycine max seed.
Regarding the limitations of claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 reciting “wherein said coated seed is a legume” and “wherein said legume is selected from alfalfa, chickpea, and bean,” as discussed above, the seed coating composition of Demares comprises beneficial microorganisms from the genera Rhizobium spp., Bradyrhizobium spp. Further, Demares teaches that growth in plants such as soybeans (i.e., a legume and a bean) depends on interactions between the plant and microorganisms that habitate the surrounding soil, like Rhizobiaceae and Bradyrhizobiaceae. The symbiosis between these bacteria and the legumes enables the legume to fix atmospheric nitrogen for plant growth, thus obviating a need for nitrogen fertilizers. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the seed coating composition of Demares to soybean seeds because the symbiosis between these bacteria and the soybeans enables the legume to fix atmospheric nitrogen for plant growth and obviate the need for nitrogen fertilizers.
Regarding the limitation of claim 8 reciting “CPFAPH in an amount effective to increase longevity of a microorganism on said seed,” Taganov teaches the inclusion of CPFAPH in the amount of from about 80% to about 90% by weight, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of arriving at CPFAPH in an amount effective to increase longevity of a microorganism on said seed in the composition of Demares through routine optimization. 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." See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that Demares does not teach or suggest a treatment that includes a first layer that includes CPFAPH while lacking or being free of a bacteria, such as a rhizobacteria, or a second layer that includes a bacteria, such as a rhizobacteria, while lacking or being free of CPFAPH.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but found not to be persuasive. Demares teaches that the mixture is applied to a seed ([0263]) that creates a coating and the applying step is repeated more than once, as in the contacting step is repeated twice, three times, four times, five times, six times, seven times, eight times, nine times, ten times, etc ([0264]). It is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that each application of a coating would result in a layer. The mixture of Demares comprises the rhizobacteria inoculant and Demares teaches that the step of adding one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients may occur before the step of applying the mixture to a seed ([0265]). As such, when the one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients are applied to the seed before the mixture, a coating is formed of the one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients and the coating does not comprise the rhizobacteria inoculant since the mixture comprising the inoculant has not yet been applied. When the mixture comprising the rhizobacteria inoculant is applied afterwards, another coating is formed, and this coating does not comprise the agriculturally beneficial ingredient since it was applied previously. Taganov teaches that CPFAPH is an agriculturally beneficial ingredient because it is a plant growth-enhancing biostimulant. Therefore, Demares and Taganov teach a first layer that includes CPFAPH (i.e., an agriculturally beneficial ingredient) while lacking or being free of a bacteria, such as a rhizobacteria, and a second layer that includes a bacteria, such as a rhizobacteria (i.e., a mixture), while lacking or being free of CPFAPH).
Applicant argues that Demares does not teach or suggest applying the "one or more microbially stabilizing compounds" to the seed before applying the microorganism(s) to the seed, either alone or as part of the mixture that includes the one or more antimicrobial compounds.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but found not to be persuasive. The claims as currently recited do not require applying the "one or more microbially stabilizing compounds" to the seed before applying the microorganism(s) to the seed, either alone or as part of the mixture that includes the one or more antimicrobial compounds. Claim 1 requires a first layer comprising CPFAPH that is free of a bacterial inoculant and a second layer comprising a bacteria inoculant superimposed over the first layer that is free of CPFAPH. The methods of claims 8 and 14 require first coating a seed with CPFAPH free of a bacterial inoculant then coating the seed with a second coating comprising a microorganism that is free of CPFAPH. As discussed above, the method for coating a seed of Demares comprises the step of adding one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients wherein, the step of adding one or more agriculturally beneficial ingredients may occur before, after, or simultaneously with the step of adding one or more microorganisms to the mixture and may occur before, after, or simultaneously with the step of applying the mixture to a seed. Taganov teaches that CPFAPH is a known and effective plant growth-enhancing biostimulant (i.e., agriculturally beneficial ingredient). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply CPFAPH (i.e., agriculturally beneficial ingredient) to the seed before the step of applying the mixture comprising the microorganism to the seed, meeting the limitations of the instant claims. The office does not take the stance that CPFAPH is one or more microbially stabilizing compounds but instead is an agriculturally beneficial ingredient.
Applicant argues that Taganov does not remedy the deficiencies of Demares.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but found not to be persuasive. The Examiner submits that Applicant’s argument with regards to Demares is addressed above and is unpersuasive. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha J Knight whose telephone number is (571)270-3760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/S.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/TRACY LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614