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 .
Summary
Claims 1-31 are pending in this office action. Claims 42-52 are withdrawn from consideration. All pending claims are under examination in this application.
Priority
The current application was filed on February 13, 2023. The current application claims domestic priority to provisional patent application 63/310,736 filed on February 16, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-31 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 is awkward. The text as written is “a functional soil amendment particle using for substrate a porous structure.” The claim should be restructured to have a clearer meaning...for example, “a functional soil amendment particle using a porous structure for a substrate.”
Dependent claims 2-31 fail to cure the defect of claim 1.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-23 and 30-31 must use the article “the” to describe the functional soil amendment because claim 1 uses the article “a.” Once antecedent basis is established within the claim set, please use “the” or “said” thereafter, in describing the noun.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-31 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 1 has the first and only method step described as “using.” This renders the claim indefinite because the exact steps involved in “using” are nowhere defined. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim to include steps of the process such as method claim comprising steps x, y and z (for example).
Dependent claims 2-31 are included because they fail to cure the defect noted for claim 1.
Claims 2-21 and 24-31 have the phrase “…such as claim X…” The Applicant is required to change the improper use of “such as” to:
a functional soil amendment particle according to claim X, or
the functional soil amendment particle of claim X
The use of the phrase “such as” is unclear and indefinite [see MPEP §2173.05(d)]. This use of “such as” is NOT exemplary claim language, it’s improper claim language and must be corrected to something like according to claim 1 or as in claim 1.
Claim 16 describes elements of the periodic table. Please further define the elements (such as atoms, as part of compounds, or organic and inorganic materials). As it is written, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 17-18 has the text “ratio.” As it is written, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Specifically, the term is indefinite because there is no indication of whether this is a mass ratio, a molar ratio, or volume ratio. Please define the ratio.
Claim 23 recites two limitations "said liquid layer" and “said agglomeration layer” in line 2 and 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the liquid layer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the substrate layer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 has the nearly identical claim limitation as seen in claim 3. 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 § 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.
The Examiner is going to present two 102(a)(1) rejections.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malyala et al. (US2017/0197192A1).
Malyala et al. is considered the closest prior art as it teaches biochar aggregate particles (see title). Furthermore, Malyala et al. disclose biochars and methods for producing biochar aggregate particles where the method for producing the aggregate
particles comprise the steps of (i) producing or collecting biochar fines; (ii) adding a binding agent to the biochar fines; and (iii) forming the biochar fines and binding agent into solid aggregate particles (see abstract).
Regarding instant claim 1, Malyala et al. disclose a functional (see paragraph [0315] “a preferred functional biochar”) soil amendment (see paragraph [0117] “biochar having desired performance properties identified to enhance soil health”) particle (see paragraph [0080] “biochar aggregate particles”) using for substrate a porous structure (see paragraph [0187] “the biochar material/substrate"; also see paragraph [0095] a biochar particle 100 is a porous structure; and see Fig 1).
Regarding instant claim 2, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1 where said substrate is constituted of functionalized (see paragraph [0315] “treated biochar can have a microbial community in its pores... a preferred functional biochar...”) aggregates (see paragraph [0080] “biochar aggregate particles”) of organic (see paragraph [0003] “Biochar…contains highly porous, high carbon content material”) and inorganic material (see paragraph [0154] “remove and/or neutralize inorganic compounds... that are formed during pyrolysis, and are fixed to the biochar pore surfaces”; it is understood that not all inorganics will be removed/neutralized; see paragraph [0197] “the treatment processes of the present invention, the biochar can also be infused with soil enhancing agents. By infusing liquid into the pore structure through the application of positive or negative pressure and/or a surfactant, alone or in combination, provides the ability to impregnate the macropores of the biochar with soil enhancing solutions and solids. The soil enhancing agent may include, but not be limited to, any of the following: water, water solutions of salts, inorganic and organic liquids of different polarities, liquid organic compounds or combinations of organic compounds and solvents, mineral and organic oils, slurries”).
Regarding instant claim 3, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 2 where said substrate is constituted of functionalized aggregates of organic and inorganic material, is intended to catalyze a reaction or sorb a fluid component (see paragraph [0137] “the water retention capacity of biochar can be greatly increased thereby holding water and/or nutrients in the plants root…zone longer”).
Regarding instant claim 4, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 2 where said organic and inorganic materials are intended to catalyze a reaction or to sorb a fluid component (see paragraph [0003] “Biochar contains highly porous, high…carbon content material; also see paragraph [0154] inorganic compounds... that are formed during pyrolysis, and are fixed to the biochar pore surfaces”; also see paragraph [0133] “the treatment processes of the invention modify the surfaces of the pore structure to provide enhanced functionality”; and see paragraph [0134] “by treating the biochar as set forth above, the hydrophilicity of the surface of the pores of the biochar is modified, allowing for a greater water retention capacity”; finally see paragraph [0137] “the water retention capacity of biochar can be greatly increased…thereby holding water and/or nutrients in the plants root zone longer; therefore, as the inorganic and organic materials make up the pores and the pores are what sorb the fluid component, the inorganic and organic materials sorb the fluid component”).
Regarding instant claim 5, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 2 where said substrate porosity is structured to catalyze a reaction or sorb a component (see paragraph [0133] “the treatment processes of the invention modify the surfaces of the pore structure to provide enhanced functionality”; also see paragraph [0134] “by treating the biochar as set forth above, the hydrophilicity of the surface of the pores of the biochar is modified, allowing for a greater water retention capacity; finally see paragraph [0137] the water retention capacity of biochar can be greatly increased…thereby holding water and/or nutrients in the plants root zone longer”).
Regarding instant claim 7, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1, where said functional soil amendment particle acts as a physical catalyst to one or more biological effects (see paragraph [0268] “Enzymes can be critical in the ability of microbes to metabolize nutrition…enzymes, like nutrients and energy sources, can be deposited on the surfaces or within the pore volume
of porous carbonaceous materials”).
Regarding instant claim 8, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 3 where the biological effect includes microbial metabolism (see paragraph [0268] “Enzymes can be critical in the ability of microbes to metabolize nutrition... enzymes, likenutrients and energy sources, can be deposited on the surfaces or within the pore volume of porous carbonaceous materials”).
Regarding instant claim 9, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1 where the particle size is between 1 micrometer and 2 millimeters (see paragraph [0094] it is desirable to use biochar particles having particle sizes from…about 4/5 mesh to about 30/35 mesh”; see Table 1 that shows a particle size between 500 mm and 4.760 mm for the corresponding mesh size).
Regarding instant claim 10, Malyala et al. disclose he functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1 where pores are between 1 nm and 100 nm (see paragraph [0095] “would also include macro pores, mesopores”…; also see paragraph [0097] “mesopores are typically defined as diameter from about 1-300 nm”).
Regarding instant claim 11, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1 where pores occupy between 15% and 75% of particle volume [see paragraph [0100] “the biochars have porosities that can range from... more preferably about 0.2 cm3/cm3 to about 0.5 cm3/cm3.” Unless stated otherwise, porosity is provided as the ratio of the total pore volumes to the solid volume (the sum of the micro+meso+macro pore volumes) to the solid volume of the biochar...”].
Regarding instant claim 13, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 4 with surface-functionalized with one or more of nitrogen, oxygen, or sulfur (see paragraph [0211] “Fertilizers that may be infused into the biochar include, but are not limited to, the following sources of nitrogen... sulfur”; it is understood infused in this case is filling the pores and therefore functionalizing the surface of the pores).
Regarding instant claim 19, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1 comprising: a porous substrate (see paragraph [0187] “the biochar (material/substrate)”; also see paragraph [0095] “a biochar particle 100 is a porous structure”; furthermore see Fig 1); a liquid layer percolated within the porous substrate structure (see paragraph [0200] “By infusing liquids into the pores of biochar,…”).
Regarding instant claim 20, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1 comprising: a porous substrate (see paragraph [0187] “the biochar (material/substrate)”; also see paragraph [0095] a biochar particle 100 is a porous structure; furthermore see Fig 1); an agglomeration layer of functional molecules attached to said substrate (see paragraph [0259] “One such modification is that the bacteria may attach to surfaces, such as those found in biochar, in a densely compacted community.”).
Regarding instant claim 21, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 1 comprising: a porous substrate (see paragraph [0187] “the biochar (material/substrate"); also see paragraph [0095] a biochar particle 100 is a porous structure; additionally see Fig 1): a liquid layer percolated within the porous substrate structure (see paragraph [0200] “By infusing liquids into the pores of biochar”); an agglomeration layer of functional molecules attached to said substrate (see paragraph [0259] “One such modification is that the bacteria may attach to surfaces, such as those found in biochar, in a densely compacted community.”).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qi et al. (CN109265289A).
Qi et al. teach soil improvement agent, preparation method, application and application method thereof (see title). Also, Qi et al. disclose that the invention belongs to the technical field of soil improvement, and relates to a soil improvement agent, a preparation method, application and an application method thereof. The soil improvement agent provided by the invention is prepared from perlite, vermiculite, animal excrement, gypsum, a porous mineral material and an iron salt solution, wherein the addition amount of the perlite is 4 to 6 parts by volume; the addition amount of the vermiculite is 8 to 12 parts by volume; the addition amount of the animal excrement is 4 to 6 parts by volume; the addition amount of the gypsum is 0.1% to1.0% of the total mass of the perlite, the vermiculite and the animal excrement; the addition amount of the porous mineral material is 1 to 3 parts by mass: and the addition amount of the iron salt solution is 6 to 8 parts by volume. The soil improvement agent can be used for increasing the field-planting survival rate of a ground cover plant in saline and alkaline land, and on the basis of ensuring quick soil improvement and an improvement effect, is matched with field planting and a management measure; the high cost for the engineering improvement of the saline and alkaline land is decreased; and the benefit and the efficiency of the ecological restoration of the saline and alkaline land are increased (see abstract).
Regarding instant claims 1-5, Qi et al. disclose a functional (see pararagraph [0005]) soil amendment (see abstract) particle (see paragraph [0091]) using for substrate a porous structure (see abstract). Additional citations for claims 2-5 are shown below:
aggregate particles (see paragraph [0091]), organic and inorganic material (see abstract),
sorb a fluid component (see paragraphs [0060] and [0119]), and
porosity (see abstract; also see paragraph [0067]).
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14-18, 22-26, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malyala et al. in view of Hawes (US5,089,036A) and Roberts et al. (US2021/0139802A1).
[The Examiner is going to introduce each new reference and then combine them where appropriate to reject the instant claims.]
1. Hawes
Hawes teaches an air scrubber for organic solvent removal (see title). In addition, Hawes an air scrubber is described, comprising a closed cabinet;
a layer of permeable growth medium for the growth of microorganisms near the bottom of the cabinet wherein a portion of the growth medium is submerged
in water, and an air space above the growth medium for accommodating growing plants wherein air is passed upwardly through at least a portion of the submerged growth medium. In normal operation, the air scrubber operates in a closed loop with a glove box. Air is circulated between the air scrubber and the glove box (see abstract).
2. Roberts et al.
Roberts et al. teach a reactor for biomass processing (see title). Additionally, Roberts et al. disclose a system for processing biomass comprising a stator, a
rotor having an axis of rotation, the rotor being disposed inside the stator and configured to rotate about the axis of rotation therein, a processing chamber defined between the
rotor and the stator, an inlet in fluid communication with the processing chamber which is designed to introduce unprocessed biomass into the processing chamber, an outlet in
fluid communication with the processing chamber which is designed to carry out processed biomass from the processing chamber and a pump operationally associated with the inlet and the outlet, wherein the pump is configured to pump the unprocessed biomass through the processing chamber (see abstract).
The teachings of Malyala et al. are disclosed above within the 35 U.S.C. §102 section. In addition, there are several instant claims made obvious by Malyala et al.
Regarding instant claim 12, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 2. Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose the particle with organic material comprising between 40% and 99% of substrate mass. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA; person of ordinary skill in the art) to have the particle with organic material comprising between 40% and 99% of substrate mass, since where the general conditions of the instant claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to tune the particle to the amount of organic material to achieve the desired fertility similar to soils (see paragraph [0003] within Malyala et al.).
Regarding instant claim 14, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 2. Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose where inorganic material comprising between 1% and 60% of substrate mass. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to have the particle have inorganic material comprising between 1% and 60% of substrate mass, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to achieve the desired pH of the particle by removing inorganics as needed to this mass range as high pH can have adverse effects on the plants in the soil (see paragraph [0154] within Malyala et al.).
Regarding instant claim 15, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of claim 2. Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose the particle with a surface area between 1 square meter per gram to 25 square meter per gram. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to have the particle with a surface area between 1 square meter per gram to 25 square meter per gram, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to tune the surface area to specific amount to achieve the desired area available to support, immobilize, and carry microbes (see paragraph [0241] “increase surface area, and thus the area available to support, immobilize, and carry microbes” within Malyala et al.).
Regarding instant claim 16, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 8 containing one or more carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, boron, chlorine, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, or zinc. Malyala et al. disclose the following elements that can be present including carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (see paragraph [0003] “Biochar... contains highly porous, high carbon content material”; also see paragraph [0211] “Fertilizers that may be infused into the biochar include, but are not limited to, the following sources of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium” within Malyala et al.).
Regarding instant claim 17, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 10. Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose where carbon to nitrogen weight ratio is between 8 and 25. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to have the carbon to nitrogen weight ratio between 8 and 25, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to determine the carbon and nitrogen levels to increase the quality of the resulting compost product (see paragraphs [0204]; [0211]; and [0374-0378]; all within Malyala et al.).
Regarding instant claim 18, Malyala et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of instant claim 10. Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose where carbon to nitrogen weight ratio is above 8. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to have the carbon to nitrogen weight ratio above 8, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to determine the carbon and nitrogen levels to increase the quality of the resulting compost product (see paragraphs [0204]; [0211]; [0374]-[0378]; all within Malyala et al.).
Regarding instant claim 22, Malyala et al. disclose the functionalized soil amendment particle of instant claim 12. Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein: functional molecules include nutrients tailored to classes of microbes which include aclinomycetes, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa, chemoautotrophs, microbes, chemoheterotrophs, photoautotrophs, or photoheterotrophs. Malyala et al. teach using functional molecules not in the agglomeration layer including nutrients tailored to classes of microbes which include actinomycetes, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa, chemoautotrophs, microbes, chemoheterotrophs, photoautotrophs, or photoheterotrophs (see paragraph [0331] “further infusing the biochar with micronutrients for mycorrhizal fungi” within Malyala et al.). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to include the functional molecules as nutrients tailored to fungi in the agglomeration layer instead of infused in the substrate, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to include these nutrients in the agglomeration layer along with fungi to ensure the fungi has enough nutrients and to use fungi depending on the crop for the soil, as some crops are better suited to fungi than bacteria (see paragraph [0326] “biochars with greater fungal development may be better suited for perennial crops such as grapes, almonds, blueberries, and strawberries in which symbiotic relationships with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are favored over PGPBs”).
Regarding instant claim 23, Malyala et al. disclose the functionalized soil amendment particle of instant claim 12 wherein: Functionalized characteristics of said substrate, said liquid layer, or said agglomeration layer are tailored to one or more classes of microbes (see paragraph [0200] “By infusing liquids into the pores of biochar, it has been discovered that additives infused within the pores of the biochar... provide a more beneficial environment for microbes which may reside or take up residence within the pores”).
Regarding instant claim 24, Malyala et al. disclose a composition soil amendment particle of instant claim 12 where the liquid layer contains one or more of water-soluble organics, water-extractible organics, simple sugars, broken cells, deoxyribonucleic acid, deoxyribonucleic acid fragments, alcohols, proteins, lignans, hemicellulose component, or acids (see paragraph [0204] “the pores of the biochar may be filled by 25%, up to 100%, with an additive solution”; also see paragraph [0213] “Examples of compounds, in addition to fertilizer, that may be infused into the pores of the biochar include, but are not limited to: phytohormones, such as, abscisic acid (ABA), auxins, cytokinins: gibberellins, brassinosteroies, salicylic acid, jasmonates, planet peptide hormones, polyamines”).
Regarding instant claim 25, Malyala et al. disclose a composition soil amendment particle of instant claim 12 where the liquid layer contains one or more of mineral nutrients or ions (see paragraph [0211] “Fertilizers that may be infused into the biochar include, but are not limited to, the following... ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate mono ammonium phosphate, ammonium polyphosphate, potassium sulfate, or potassium chloride.”).
Regarding instant claim 26, Malyala et al. disclose the composition soil amendment particle of instant claim 19 where ions include ammonium, ammonia, nitrate, phosphate, or potassium (see paragraph [0211] “Fertilizers that may be infused into the biochar include, but are not limited to, the following... ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate... mono ammonium phosphate, ammonium polyphosphate, potassium sulfate, or potassium chloride.”).
Regarding instant claim 27, Malyala et al. disclose the functionality soil amendment particle of instant claim 2 that allows microbe penetration (see paragraph [0315] “treated biochar can have a microbial community in its pores” within Malyala et al.). Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose the microbe penetration between 15% and 75% per unit volume of the particle. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to have the microbe penetration between 15% and 75% per unit volume of the particle, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be ensure that the microbes penetrate to a necessary depth to ensure they remain in the particle to provide a healthier soil (see paragraph [0315] “A primary purpose in agricultural settings, among many purposes, in selecting the microbial population is looking toward a population that will initiate a healthy soil” within Malyala et al.)
Regarding instant claim 28, Malyala et al. disclose a composition soil amendment particle of instant claim 17 where the porous substrate contains one or more of simple sugars, broken cells, deoxyribonucleic acid, deoxyribonucleic acid fragments, proteins, lignans, hemicellulose component, or acids. Malyala et al. disclose where the porous substrate contains carbohydrates, minerals, or proteins (see paragraph [0220] “Biochar may be infused in the same manner as described above with nutrients (such as carbohydrates, minerals, proteins...)” within Malyala et al.).
Regarding instant claim 29, Malyala et al. disclose the composition soil amendment particle of instant claim 8 used as part of a moisture, a liquid, a solution, or a combination thereof (see paragraph [0281] “the biochar is delivered in suspension in the liquid also carrying the microbes. This biochar/liquid/microbe slurry is then deployed as a liquid.” within Malyala et al.).
Combination of Malyala et al. and Howes
Regarding instant claim 30, Malyala et al. and Howes disclose a soil amendment compound (see paragraph [0117] “biochar having desired performance properties identified to enhance soil health” within Malyala et al.) adapted to the need of target (see paragraph [0360] “specific biochar effective in the target application” within Malyala et al.) comprising: one or more classes of composition soil amendment particles of instant claim 7 (see paragraph [0254] “Biochars with differing microbial communities” within Malyala et al.); where each class said soil amendment compound is adapted to the need of specific categories (see paragraph [0254] “Biochars with differing microbial communities may be beneficial for specific applications in commercial agriculture” within Malyala et al.). Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose a soil amendment compound adapted to the need of target biodomes, where each class said soil amendment compound is adapted to the need of specific categories of biodomes.
Hawes teaches a biodome (see abstract within Howes) comprising soil (see col 4 In 33-34 “To support the growth of the plants, a layer of soil 30 is layered over the carbon layer” within Howes). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to modify Malyala et al. with the teaching of Hawes for the purpose of using the soil amendment of Malyala et al. in a biodome in order to control the conditions of the biodome for experimentation purposes (see col 1 In 27-30 “It is desirable to provide a microcosm of the biosphere known as earth to study the interaction of components and for the development of techniques for influencing our environment” within Hawes).
Regarding instant claim 31, Malyala et al. and Howes disclose a soil amendment compound (see paragraph [0117] “biochar having desired performance
properties identified to enhance soil health” within Malyala et al.) adapted to the need of target (see paragraph [0360] “specific biochar effective in the target application” within Malyala et al.) comprising: one or more classes of composition soil amendment particles of claim 7 (see paragraph [0254] “Biochars with differing microbial communities” within Malyala et al.); where each class said soil amendment compound is adapted to the need of specific categories (see paragraph [0254] “Biochars with differing microbial communities may be beneficial for specific applications in commercial agriculture” within Malyala et al.). Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose a soil amendment compound adapted to the need of target biodomes, where each class said soil amendment compound is adapted to the need of specific categories of biodomes.
Hawes teaches a biodome (see abstract within Hawes) comprising soil (see col 4 In 33-34 “To support the growth of the plants, a layer of soil 30 is layered over the carbon layer” within Hawes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Malyala et al. with the teaching of Hawes for the purpose of using the soil amendment of Malyala et al. in a biodome in order to control the conditions of the biodome for experimentation purposes (see Hawes col 1 In 27-30 “It is desirable to provide a microcosm of the biosphere known as earth to study the interaction of components and for the development of techniques for influencing our environment” within Hawes).
Combination of Malyala et al. and Roberts et al.
Regarding instant claim 6, Malyala et al. and Roberts et al. disclose the functional soil amendment particle of claim 1 where said substrate is constituted of functionalized (see paragraph [0315] “treated biochar can have a microbial community in its pores…a preferred functional biochar...”) aggregates (see paragraph [0080] “biochar aggregate particles” within Malyala et al.) of organic (see paragraph [0003] “Biochar... contains highly porous, high carbon content material” within Malyala et al.) and inorganic material (see paragraph [0154] “remove and/or neutralize inorganic compounds... that are formed during pyrolysis, and are fixed to the biochar pore surfaces” within Malyala et al.; it is understood that not all inorganics will be removed/neutralized; see paragraph [0197] “the treatment processes of the present invention, the biochar can also be infused with soil enhancing agents. By infusing liquid into the pore structure through the application of positive or negative pressure and/or a surfactant, alone or in combination, provides the ability to impregnate the macropores of the biochar with soil enhancing solutions and solids. The soil enhancing agent may include, but not be limited to, any of the following: water, water solutions of salts, inorganic and organic liquids of different polarities, liquid organic compounds or combinations of organic compounds and solvents, mineral and organic oils, slurries” within Malyala et al.). Malyala et al. fails to explicitly disclose the aggregates organized as kinochar. However, Roberts et al. is in the field of hydrochar from biomass (see paragraph [0022] “The system processes biomass where it undergoes Hydrothermal Carbonization, producing both hydrochar...” within Roberts et al.) for use as a soil amendment (see paragraph [0024] “soil amendment called hydrochar” within Roberts et al.) and teaches the soil amendment organized as kinochar (see paragraph [0022] “The system processes biomass where it undergoes Hydrothermal Carbonization”; also see paragraph [0023] “The rotational force and kinetic energy created by the combination of the spinning rotor, the heated water, and the pressure generated within the processing chamber of the reactor help to break down the biomass through shear force, friction, and radial force” within Roberts et al.). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (POSITA) to modify Malyala et al. with the teaching of Roberts et al. for the purpose of using kinochar as the process to form kinochar is carbon-neutral (see paragraph [0005] within Roberts et al.) and is more efficient than typical hydrochar (HTC) processes (see paragraph [0025] within Roberts et al.).
Analogous Art
The Malyala et al., Hawes, and Roberts et al. references are directed to the same field of endeavor as the instant claims, that is, a functional soil amendment particle using for substrate a porous structure.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the soil amendment particle disclosed by Malyala et al., using the teachings of Hawes and Roberts et al. to incorporate the necessary claim limitations.
Malyala et al., Hawes, and Roberts et al. are all within the analogous art field soil health. Motivation to combine the Hawes and Roberts et al. references with Malyala et al. because Hawes discloses a biodome that would be used in order to control the conditions of the biodome for experimentation purposes, and Roberts et al. teaches the soil amendment organized as kinochar shown to be a carbon-neutral process. These two references would be selected by a skilled artisan (POSITA) modify the soil amendment particle taught by Malyala et al.
Starting with Malyala et al., the skilled person only had to try the necessary claim limitations disclosed by Hawes and Roberts et al. The combination of Malyala et al., Hawes, and Roberts et al. would allow one to arrive at the present application without employing inventive skill. This combination of the soil amendment particle taught by Malyala et al. along with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by Hawes and Roberts et al. would allow a research and development scientist (POSITA) to develop the invention taught in the instant application. It would have only required routine experimentation to modify the soil amendment particle disclosed by Malyala et al. with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by Hawes and Roberts et al. This combined modification would have led to an enhanced soil amendment particle that would be beneficial for consumers.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W LIPPERT III whose telephone number is (571)270-0862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/JOHN W LIPPERT III/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615