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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention of a method there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/13/2025
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 8-11 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 11 is/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.
Claim 11 recites: “… the coir pith is configured to absorb 0.5-0.6 mL of liquid per mL volume of the coir pith.” (emphasis added by examiner). No information is provided as to the nature of the “configured to” beyond particle size making this limitation indefinite. Further no information on the type of liquid is provided (i.e. water, alcohol, oil, etc.) further rendering the asserted configuration indefinite (i.e. does particle size play a role which is different from liquid to liquid, does pore size play a role, etc.) No information is provided as to the nature of the “configured to” beyond particle size making this limitation indefinite.
For purposes of examination this shall be interpreted to mean that the coir pith with the claimed particle size is so configured.
See instant specification. [0012] According to another embodiment of the present subject matter, a coir pith composition with enhanced liquid absorbent capacity, storage and handling characteristics is disclosed. In various embodiments, the coir pith composition comprises dry coir with a predetermined particle size of 1mm or less, and moisture content of 40- 60% by weight. In various embodiments, the coir pith is configured to absorb 0.5-0.6 mL of liquid per mL volume of the coir pith.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Instant specification establishing that at 40 % moisture and a particle size less than 0.4mm the absorbance is 0.6 mL/mL
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Study of Physical Properties of Coir Pith I Neethi Manickam P Subramanian International Journal of Green Energy, 3:397-406 2006
Regarding Independent Claim 8
Study discloses coir pith facilitates retention of water and absorbs over eight times its weight of water (P298 par 4) (enhanced absorbent capacity of preamble) It is a waste from coir processing industries and provides an economical product for removal of toxic heavy meals from industrial wastewater (p 298 last par and is an adsorbent (P399 first par) It can be used to make particle board (P399 Par 2) as insulating material and heat absorbent (P399 par 3)
Coir pith is a loose form with high moisture and may have different particle sizes (P 399 under preparation of sample)
PNG
media_image2.png
672
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Showing coir pith moisture content meeting the claimed range where the bulk density is 0.2 to 0.35. So when bulk density is 0.2 and particle size is 0.231 mm the moisture content is 40 % (thereby meeting the limitations of claims 8 for a predetermined particle size of less than 1 mm and moisture of 40-60 wt.%).
Claim 8 recites enhanced liquid absorbance capacity storage handling characteristic in the preamble. Since the claim is directed to a composition the contents of which are fully recited, the intended use does not further limit the claimed composition. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81
In the alternative, Study having disclosed the compositional component of the instant claims of coir pith of the claimed particle size and moisture content is taught to possess enhanced liquid absorbent capacity and it will also necessarily possess enhanced handling and storage handling. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding Dependent Claim 9:
Study discloses the limitations above set forth.
Figure 3: Showing coir pith moisture content meeting the claimed range where the bulk density is 0.2 to 0.35. So when bulk density is 0.2 and particle size is 0.231 mm the moisture content is 40 % thereby meeting the limitations of claim for a particle size of 0.4 mm or less
PNG
media_image2.png
672
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Coir pith having particle sizes of 0.925 0.39, 0.231, 0.098 and 0.655 were prepared (meeting the particle size of claim 9) having moisture content as show in fig 3. Showing overlapping ranges of moisture content.
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.
35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Study of Physical Properties of Coir Pith I Neethi manickam Psubramanian International Journal of Green Energy, 3:397-406 2006 as applied to claims 8-9 above
Regarding Dependent Claim 11:
Study discloses the limitations above set forth. Study discloses the particle size ranges from 0.075 to 3.0 mm (P400 second par)
The prior art teaches an example Figure 3: Showing moisture content meeting the claimed range where the bulk density is 0.2 to 0.35. So when bulk density is 0.2 and particle size is 0.231 mm the moisture content is 40 %
In the instant specification at Table 3 moisture of 40 % with a particle size of 0.4mm or less has a volume of oil absorbed per vol coir pith of 0.6 ml/ml.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Study teaches at Figure 3: Showing moisture content meeting the claimed range where the bulk density is 0.2 to 0.35. So when bulk density is 0.2 and particle size is 0.231 mm the moisture content is 40 % as such the examiner maintains the coir pith of Study will necessarily absorb 0.6 mL of liquid per mL volume. Since the prior art teaches the claimed particle size, moisture content it will be capable for the absorbance of 0.5 to 6 mL of liquid per mL volume of coir pith. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In the alternative, assuming arguendo the coir does not teach the exact range of instant claim 11,
Since the reference teaches the claimed coir with the claimed particle size and claimed moisture it will be expected to overlap and encompass the claimed ranges of instant claim 11. See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
Further in the alternative:
Since the reference teaches the relationship between bulk density, particle density and even porosity with moisture content and absorbency * it is within the ken of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to optimize absorbance of liquid per mL volume of coir pith.
* Study teaches the relationship between bulk density particle size moisture etc.
Coir pith having particle sizes of 0.925 0.39, 0.231, 0.098 and 0.655 were prepared having moisture content as show in fig 3. Showing overlapping ranges of moisture content.
PNG
media_image2.png
672
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
336
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
678
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Study of Physical Properties of Coir Pith I Neethi manickam Psubramanian International Journal of Green Energy, 3:397-406 2006 as applied to claims 8-9 and 11 above further in view of Drysdale et al (AU-A-49015/93)
Regarding Dependent Claim 10:
Study discloses the limitations above set forth. Study discloses the coir pith is a useful soil conditioner and plant growth medium (P 398 par 3-end of page)Study discloses the coir pith can be used for slow release of nutrients. (P 398 par 4)
Study does not expressly disclose adding a fungicide in distilled water.
Drysdale teaches a flowable carrier of a water dispersible substance (See claim 1 of reference) such are coir pith granules of 0.005 to 3 .0 mm (see claim 6 reference) and is used in soil (See claims 12-14 etc. of reference) Drysdale et al teaches granular flowable carrier including a granular component having a microstructure of a capillary vessel and is strongly hydrophilic (Abstract) the first granular material is coir in the size of 0.05 to 3.0 mm (P5 L4-7) the material is coir pith (P5 L25-35) which can take up to 100 times its own weight in water 9P6 L1-3) Coir has a natural pH of 5.4 to 6.8 plus unusually high cation exchange capacity with carbon/nitrogen ratio of 110:1 and high protective lignin content results bacterial or chemical decomposition and breakdown (P6 L1-10)
Coir rapidly absorbs water into capillary vessels and the water is brought into contact with a surfactant. The coir is capable of storing a large quantity of surfactant (P9 L1-15)
Distilled water is used for adding surfactants (P7 L40-P8 L5)
The invention may be applied to production of carriers for substances other than surfactants. For example slow release insecticides or fungicides can be absorbed into the coir capillary material to product a granular flowable material loaded with fungicide to be dispersed over long periods Liquid fungicides can be absorbed directly into the coir (P ( L26-36) Fungicides can be dissolved or suspended in liquid prior to mixing with coir materials. (P12 L1-5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a liquid comprising distilled water containing fungicide to the coir of Study for extended release into soil as taught by Drysdale as Study expressly contemplates the use of the coir for soil treatment and slow release; further, doing so amounts to nothing more than use of a known material (fungicide) in a known environment (coir pith) to achieve an entirely expected result of fungicide treatment of soil.
The amount of distilled water will be sufficient for coir pith to absorb same and to above a useful concentration of fungicide. 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)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO 892 accompanying this office action.
For example:
DETERMINATION OF PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF COIR PITH IN RELATION TO PARTICLE SIZE SUITABLE FOR POTTING MEDIUM P. RONALD ROSS*, J. PARAMANANDHAM, P. THENMOZHI1, K.S. ABBIRAMY AND M. MUTHULINGAM Department of Zoology, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar- 608 002. 1Department of Zoology, St. Joseph’s College, Cuddalore- 607 001. *Email: r_ross1971@yahoo.co.in Received 18 May 2012; accepted 23 June 2012
Determination teaches coir pith of 0.2 to 4 mm particle size (Abstract)
The role of particle size on the water absorbing capacity of various grades of coir pith is shown in Table 2. The maximum (65%) absorptivity is found in 300 micron size particles. The adsorption capacity decreased as the particle of coir pith increased. The grade of coir pith having the highest particle size (2000 micron) showed the absorptivity percentage of 42. (P46 C1 last par)
Moisture retention is the function of water holding capacity. Such water holding capacity is higher in smaller particles (Table 2) which means that moisture retention is higher in smaller particles(P46t C2 first par)
PNG
media_image5.png
404
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
BERTIN et al US 8429848 discloses coir pith granules (Abstract)
The composition may comprises additives such as fertilizers, micronutrients, pH adjusters such as lime and/or various wetting agents including horticulturally acceptable surfactants and other additives designed to enhance or protect germination development and growth of seeds and plant in a growth media and additives to improve the physical and horticultural characteristics of the granules including pesticides or herbicides (C3 L60 – Cr4 l10) The moisture content of loose coir pith in the coconut coir pith substrate may be less than about 25% water by weight for compaction of the substrate. Preferably, the range of moisture content should be between about 8 and about 15% water (by weight). The compaction itself may not significantly affect the moisture content of the coir pith; however, if desired, steps can be taken to adjust the moisture content during any preconditioning and/or blending stages prior to compaction. The granules can range in size from less than about 1½″ to greater than about 32 mesh. The size of the granules can be adjusted based on application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732