DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Receipt and consideration of Applicant’s amended claim set and Applicant’s arguments/remarks submitted on December 23, 2025 are acknowledged.
All rejections/objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicant’s claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 19-28 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 2-10 and 13-18 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-21, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 19-21, 25, and 27 each depend, or ultimately depend from, claim 1, which recite the closed transitional phrase “consisting of” with regards to the components of the composition. Claims 19-21, 25, and 27, however, each recite the open transitional phrase “comprising”, which is broader in scope, allowing for the inclusion of unrecited elements. Thus, claims 19-21, 25, and 27 each fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends as each broaden the scope of the claim upon which it depends from.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 19-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knochenmus et al. (Knochenmus) (US 2011/0152363 A1; of record).
Knochenmus discloses inorganic mineral chelated compositions and methods of using such compositions (para.0012). The compositions are to be applied to improve the growth of plant life (Knochenmus claim 17).
With regards to Claims 1 and 19, in an embodiment, the mineral product comprises one or more mineral chelated lactates; yucca; fiber; one or more enzymes; and a carrier (Knochenmus claim 26). In an embodiment, the mineral chelated lactate is cobalt lactate (Knochenmus claim 28; para.0050).
Knochenmus further discloses that the mineral product may further comprise metal sulfates (Knochenmus claim 27). The metal sulfates may be present in an amount of about 2% to about 10% of the product by weight (para.0051).
With regards to Claims 21-23, 25, and 26, The carrier may be a dry substrate or a liquid carrier. The carrier may include one or more of diatomaceous earth, calcium carbonate, limestone, sugars, dextrose, water, ground corn cobs, starch, and combinations thereof (par.0045).
The carrier may be from about 60% to about 80% by weight (para.0051). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
In an embodiment, Knochenmus discloses the application of cobalt lactate mixed with water (para.0052; Table 1).
With regards to Claims 11 and 24, Knochenmus discloses that the chelated lactates may be present in an amount of about 15 to about 20% of the product by weight (para.0051). However, Knochenmus also discloses application of a mixture of cobalt lactate in water, wherein the amount of cobalt was 0, 1, 10, 100, and 1000 ppm (para.0052), thus indicating that higher amounts of water and lower amounts of cobalt lactate than the aforementioned ranges may be used. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the guidance of the prior art teachings to determine the weight percentages of the individual components. 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.
With regards to Claim 20, Knochenmus discloses that the fiber comprises about 1% to about 5% of the product by weight and the one or more enzymes comprise about 0.1% to about 2% of the product by weight (Knochenmus claims 32 and 33). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the weight percentage of 0.40 wt.% to 0.75 wt.% because Knochenmus discloses a small amount of Yucca extract, two enzymes and larch arabinogalactan (a fiber) are used in the composition (para.0051, 0066). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the guidance of the prior art teachings to determine the weight percentages of the individual components. 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.
With regards to Claim 28, the composition may be in the form of a fine powder (para.0044).
Knochenmus does not appear to explicitly disclose the inclusion of cobalt sulfate (Claims 1 and 12) or the specific enzymes recited in Claim 27. Yamashita is relied upon for these disclosures. The teachings of Yamashita are set forth herein below.
Yamashita discloses compositions for stimulating growth of plants, e.g. increase in crop production (abstract). Yamashita disclose that cobalt sulfate is a known source of the macronutrient S for plants (col. 7, lines 19-22).
Yamashita discloses that cellulase and amylase are known to be used in compositions for stimulating growth of plants (col.28, ln.30-60).
With regards to the inclusion of cobalt sulfate as recited in Claims 1 and 12, as discussed above, Knochenmus discloses the inclusion of metal sulfates in their composition for application to improve the growth of plant life. In light of Yamashita’s disclosure that cobalt sulfate is known to be used in agricultural compositions for stimulating plant growth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try cobalt sulfate as the metal sulfate in Knochenmus’s composition as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as cobalt sulfate is a metal sulfate known to be used in agricultural compositions for stimulating plant growth and known to provide a necessary macronutrient for plant growth.
With regards to Claim 27, as discussed above, Knochenmus discloses the inclusion of one or more enzymes in their composition for application to improve the growth of plant life. In light of Yamashita’s disclosure that amylase and cellulase are known to be used in agricultural compositions for stimulating plant growth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try amylase and/or cellulase as the enzyme in Knochenmus’s composition as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as amylase and cellulase are known to be used in agricultural compositions for stimulating plant growth.
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 instant invention was made, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant notes that the claim recites the transition phrase “consisting of” to describe the materials in the composition. Applicant argues that Yamashita does not rectify the deficiencies of Knochenmus because Yamashita discloses a composition of a complex mix of micro- and macronutrients, and a person skilled in the art reading Yamashita would not be motivated to exclude most of the components, and Yamashita gives no guidance about selecting certain materials other others that would lead a person skilled in the art to select the presently claimed minerals other others. Applicant argues that excluding materials from Yamashita’s composition would change the principle of operation of Yamashita and render it inoperable for its intended purpose.
With regards to Applicant’s argument (1), the traversal argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, Knochenmus explicitly discloses the inclusion of a metal sulfate and enzymes in their composition for application to improve the growth of plant life. Yamashita was only relied upon for the disclosure of specific metal sulfates and enzymes known in the art to be used in such compositions. In particular, Yamashita discloses cobalt sulfate among a limited list of art recognized metal sulfates known to be used to provide a necessary macronutrient for plant growth, and exemplifies the use of cellulase and amylase as enzymes in agricultural compositions for stimulating plant growth.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 19-28 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616