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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Action/Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-13 and 15-22 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim interpretation
The term “rapidly soluble” is interpreted as defined in paragraph 0041 of instant specification which refers to a compound that has been altered to increase solubility in a solvent.
New/Maintained Claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s)
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 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 9-13 and 15-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knochenmus et al. (US 2014/0011675 A1) in view of Lamb et al. (US 2016/0000093 A1).
Knochenmus teaches seed, soil, and plant treatment compositions and particularly a method of treating seeds, soil or a plant with a composition comprising one or more of mineral chelated compounds and specifically a mineral lactate. The method comprises applying the treatment composition to one or more of a seed, soil and plant, wherein the treatment composition provides a mineral lactate product to promote seed and plant growth (see e.g., Abstract; para 0009; 0052; 0053; claim 23). Examples of mineral chelated compounds include but are not limited to cobalt, scandium, selenium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, or a combination thereof chelated to one or more ligands to form a chelate (a chelate complex or coordinate complex). Examples of suitable ligands include lactate. (see e.g., para 0052). Knochenmus also teaches calcium, magnesium and sulfur are measured and monitored as essential macronutrients required for healthy plant growth and can be included in the composition (e.g., para 0002; 0006; 0053). Cobalt lactate is one specific example of a mineral chelated compound expressly taught by Knochenmus (e.g., para 0077). The mineral chelated compound can be reduced in size sufficient to increase its solubility and provide a rapidly soluble mineral chelated product. The screening may include filtering with a mesh and the mesh size can be less than 50 (which equates to a particle size of less than 297 micron) (see e.g., para 0012; 0117). Applying the composition in an agricultural application includes applying to foliar, applying in furrow and applying to seed (e.g., para 0011; 0044). Knochenmus teaches incorporating a suitable fiber which is yucca plant extract and particularly Saponix 5000 or BioLiquid 5000 (yucca schidigera) (see e.g., para 0082; 0088). Knochenmus teaches the composition can comprise additional chelated or inorganic salt which include iron (e.g., para 0086). Knochenmus also teaches the composition and method taught provides micronutrients in a highly bioavailable form to plant and soil, and the absorption of chelated nutrients is significantly enhanced in plants/seeds compared to other application methods. (e.g., abstract; para 0044). Knochenmus teaches the composition comprising mineral chelated product being rapidly soluble (see e.g., para 0011; 0061; 0112; 0117-0119). Additionally, Knochenmus does not require component which are excluded with the use of consisting of language recited in claim 21. Knochenmus teaches the composition can optionally comprise a fungicide, herbicide or carriers (e.g., para 0008). The optional inclusion of a fungicide, herbicide or carriers still reads on claim 21 as these components are not required to be included in the composition. Knochenmus teaches the treatment composition can be in the form of solution and solution refers to a homogenous mixture (e.g., para 0062; 0089). Knochenmus does not require the use of a surfactant. Knochenmus teaches the composition also comprises inorganic fertilizer and an “inorganic fertilizer” refers to a composition intended to enhance the growth of plants by providing macronutrients such as one or more of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur. (e.g., para 0053; claims), which reads on at least one other magnesium compound. As mentioned above, Knochenmus teaches the examples of mineral chelated compounds include but are not limited to cobalt, scandium, selenium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper and zinc. Thus, Knochenmus does not require cobalt or cobalt chelated compound. Knochenmus teaches carrier comprises water wherein the composition can be at least about 50% water by weight (e.g., claim 4, para 0080).
The teachings of Knochenmus have been set forth above.
Knochenmus does not expressly teach the mineral chelated compounds include specifically magnesium lactate. However, Lamb et al. cures this deficiency.
Lamb discloses seed, soil, and plant treatment compositions, and their methods of preparation. Lamb particularly teaches a method of treating seed, soil, or plant wherein the method comprises applying a treatment composition to one or more of a seed, soil and plant. (Abstract; [0097]; Claims 1, 8 and 17). Lamb teaches an inorganic fertilizer that enhances the growth of plants by providing macronutrients such as one or more of nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, etc. [0039]. Lamb contemplates a composition wherein the metal is one or more of iron, cobalt, magnesium, etc., and wherein the chelant of the metal chelated compound is one of lactate, acetate, propionate, butyrate, ethylene diamine, or EDTA; Cobalt lactate is one specific example of a mineral chelated compound (Claims 8-10; [0110]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Knochenmus to incorporate the teachings of Lamb and include the mineral chelated compound such as magnesium lactate in the composition of Knochenmus. As discussed supra, Knochenmus teaches the examples of mineral chelated compounds include but are not limited to cobalt, scandium, selenium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, or a combination thereof. Knochenmus also teaches calcium, magnesium and sulfur are measured and monitored as essential macronutrients required for healthy plant growth and can also be included in the composition (e.g., para 0002; 0006; 0053). As mentioned previously, Lamb contemplates a composition wherein the metal is one or more of iron, cobalt, magnesium, etc., and wherein the chelant of the metal chelated compound can be lactate. Magnesium is taught to be an essential nutrient for healthy plant growth by both Knochenmus and Lamb and both of these references teach incorporating mineral chelated compound for healthy plant growth. Knochenmus teaches the mineral chelated compounds are not limited to the ones disclosed in the reference and therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Lamb and substitute the specific mineral chelated compound taught in Knochenmus with magnesium lactate as the mineral chelated compound since magnesium is taught to be an essential nutrient for plant growth.
Regarding the recitation “thereby providing an increased concentration of magnesium to the seed, soil or plant as compared toa seed, soil, or plant that is not administered the treatment composition”, as discussed supra, the prior art teaches the composition comprises magnesium content and thus would provide an increased concentration of magnesium to plant as compared to a plant not treated with such composition.
From the combined teaching of the cited references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knochenmus et al. (US 2014/0011675 A1) in view of Lamb et al. (US 2016/0000093 A1) as applied to claims 9-13 and 15-17, 19-21 above and further in view of PDA (Potash Development Association, December 2017).
The teachings of above cited references have been set forth above.
As discussed supra, Knochenmus teaches the composition also comprises inorganic fertilizer and an “inorganic fertilizer” refers to a composition intended to enhance the growth of plants by providing macronutrients such as one or more of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur, which reads on at least one other magnesium compound. The reference does not teach the specific magnesium compounds recited in claims 18 and 22. However, PDA cures this deficiency.
PDA teaches magnesium as a nutrient for crops and grass. PDA teaches magnesium in the form of sulfate, carbonate, oxide and nitrate form is usually applied as a nutrient for crops. (see entire document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Knochenmus to incorporate the teachings of PDA and specifically include magnesium in the form of sulfate, carbonate, oxide and nitrate as taught by PDA. As discussed supra, Knochenmus teaches the composition also comprises inorganic fertilizer and an “inorganic fertilizer” refers to a composition intended to enhance the growth of plants by providing macronutrients such as one or more of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur, which reads on at least one other magnesium compound. Knochenmus does not teach the specific form of magnesium in this case. PDA teaches magnesium as a nutrient for crops and grass. PDA teaches magnesium in the form of sulfate, carbonate, oxide and nitrate form is usually applied as a nutrient for crops. Thus, it would have been obvious to include a magnesium form which is taught in the art as a commonly used form of magnesium to provide plant nutrient.
From the combined teaching of the cited references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued Knochenmus is related to compositions for the delivery of micronutrients to plants but does not teach the delivery of macronutrients.
In response, the examiner argues that Knochenmus teaches calcium, magnesium and sulfur are measured and monitored as essential macronutrients required for healthy plant growth and can be included in the composition (e.g., para 0002; 0006; 0053). Knochenmus also teaches the composition also comprises inorganic fertilizer and an “inorganic fertilizer” refers to a composition intended to enhance the growth of plants by providing macronutrients such as one or more of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur (e.g., para 0053; claims). Therefore, Knochenmus does suggest providing macronutrient such as magnesium to plants.
Applicant argued that Knochenmus teaches throughout the importance of administering cobalt chelate compounds and each of the examples of Knochenmus is directed to cobalt lactate. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not remove cobalt lactate from the composition of Knochenmus.
In response, the examiner respectfully draws applicant’s attention to the MPEP which states “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from the broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiment.” In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). MPEP 2123. Knochenmus teaches the mineral chelated compound can be, for example, cobalt, scandium, selenium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, or a combination thereof (para 0009), which suggests that the chelated compounds does not have to be cobalt. Thus, applicant argument that Knochenmus requires cobalt chelate compound is not found persuasive.
Applicant argued that Knochenmus does not teach the administration of an additional magnesium compound in conjunction with magnesium lactate.
In response, as discussed supra, Knochenmus teaches the composition also comprises inorganic fertilizer and an “inorganic fertilizer” refers to a composition intended to enhance the growth of plants by providing macronutrients such as one or more of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur. (e.g., para 0053; claims), which reads on at least one other magnesium compound. Further, as discussed supra, the combination of Knochenmus and Lamb renders obvious the inclusion of specifically magnesium lactate because Knochenmus teaches the examples of mineral chelated compounds include but are not limited to cobalt, scandium, selenium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, or a combination thereof. Knochenmus also teaches calcium, magnesium and sulfur are measured and monitored as essential macronutrients required for healthy plant growth. Lamb contemplates a composition wherein the metal is one or more of iron, cobalt, magnesium, etc., and wherein the chelant of the metal chelated compound can be lactate. Magnesium is taught to be an essential nutrient for healthy plant growth by both Knochenmus and Lamb and both of these references teach incorporating mineral chelated compound for healthy plant growth. Knochenmus teaches the mineral chelated compounds are not limited to the ones disclosed in the reference and therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Lamb and substitute the specific mineral chelated compound taught in Knochenmus with magnesium lactate as the mineral chelated compound since magnesium is taught to be an essential nutrient for plant growth.
Applicant argued that each of the listed metals (mineral chelates) is a micronutrient and one would infer that any replacement mineral chelated compound would need to be micronutrients.
In response, the examiner reiterates that Knochenmus teaches the examples of mineral chelated compounds include but are not limited to cobalt, scandium, selenium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, or a combination thereof. Nowhere in the reference does Knochenmus state that the mineral chelated compound must be a micronutrient. Thus, applicant’s statement that one would infer that any replacement mineral chelated compound would need to be micronutrients is not persuasive at this time.
Applicant argued Lamb teaches the use of metal chelated compounds in combination with emulsified essential oils and there is no motivation to remove the emulsified essential oils from the composition of Lamb.
In response, the examiner argues that the rejection is over Knochenmus in view of Lamb, wherein Knochenmus is the primary reference which does not require essential oils and Lamb is utilized as secondary reference for its teachings of mineral chelates which include cobalt, magnesium and other micronutrients and macronutrients. Knochenmus teaches the examples of mineral chelated compounds include but are not limited to cobalt, scandium, selenium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, or a combination thereof. Lamb also teaches several mineral chelated compounds which include, for example, cobalt, iron and magnesium. Use of magnesium chelate was known in the art, as taught in Lamb, and thus the inclusion of magnesium lactate would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI SAEED whose telephone number is (571)272-2371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 5712725539. 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.
/ALI S SAEED/Examiner, Art Unit 1616