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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 7 and 14-16 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.
Claims 7 and 14-15 are unclear. The claims recites percentages of components but it is not clear how it relates to the claimed components or the recited method. A percentage is a ratio that compares a part to a whole, scaled to a base of 100. It represents a relative relationship between two numbers, rather than an absolute amount. One of skill would not understand the relationship referred to without a basis for determining the percentage (e.g. are the amounts of seed grind, sugar, and/or fertilizer nutrient relative to a total composition containing the three components, or relative to each other, or relative to the soil or hydroponic medium and whether the claimed percentage is a weight percentage, volume percentage, molar percentage, or other). This phrasing is mathematically ambiguous. For the purposes of examination, the claimed percentage limitations will be interpreted in relation to a composition comprising the seed grind such as “wherein the seed grind comprises […]”.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Huang (CN 1104196-A – originally cited in 02/20/2025 PTO-892) as interpreted with Google Translate.
In regard to claim 1, Huang teaches a method of enhancing the early growth of a plant (e.g. application of fertilizer to field in which rice seedlings are planted) [pg. 4] comprising:
providing a seed or seedling to a soil or hydroponic medium (e.g. rice seedlings were planted on July 30, 1993) [pg. 4, 2nd para.]; and
applying a seed grind to the soil or the hydroponic medium separately from the seed or seedling when the plant is the seed or the seedling (e.g. after planting field is treated with fertilizer; fertilizer comprises corn flour, rice grain flour, sorghum flour, soybean powder) [pg. 4, 1st para.; para. bridging pgs. 1-2], wherein
the seed grind is formed from rice (e.g. rice flour) [para. bridging pgs. 1-2];
the seed grind is considered to provide additional seed components to roots of a seedling to enhance root growth compared to root growth without the additional seed components and the seed grind is applied in an amount to enhance growth and yield of the plant. (e.g. treated rice results in increased yield compared to the control) [pg. 4, last para.].
In regard to claim 6, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of sugar to the soil or the hydroponic medium (e.g. rapeseed cake - wherein rapeseed cake inherently contains low molecular weight sugars, oligosaccharides, and storage polysaccharide) [para. bridging pgs. 1-2], when the plant is a seed or a seedling (e.g. planting rice seed) [pg. 4].
In regard to claim 8, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, comprising applying the seed grind in the form of a solid, a powder, a suspension, or a slurry (e.g. composition is crushed and sieved) [pg. 3] to the soil surface or beneath the soil surface (e.g. applied to the soil or sprayed on the leaves) [pg. 4, 1st para.].
In regard to claim 9, Huang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising applying urea to the seed or seedling (e.g. fertilizer comprises a urea chemical fertilizer component) [pg. 1, section 2].
In regard to claims 10-11, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the seed or seedling is rice (e.g. application of fertilizer to field in which rice seedlings are planted) [pg. 4,]
In regard to claim 13, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of nitrogen comprised of urea and ammonium bicarbonate [pg. 1, section 2] and a bicarbonate comprising sodium bicarbonate [pg. 2, section 7] to the soil or the hydroponic medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-4, 7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 1104196-A).
In regard to claims 2-4, Huang discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising a rice seed component generally (e.g. rice) [para. bridging pgs. 1-2] which is subjected to crushing to a powder (e.g. 70 mesh size) [pg. 2, 2nd para.]. The reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the rice is whole rice (claim 2), whole rice without the husk (claim 3) or brown rice (claim 4). However, Huang discloses the rice component usable as a starch material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of common types of rice or forms of rice to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to formulate a fertilizer with optimal carbon/energy to feed the treated plants.
In regard to claims 7 and 14-15, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, including applying a composition comprising 1% to 99% of the seed grind (e.g. 0.8-1.2% starch) [para. bridging pgs. 1-2], 0.5% to 97% of a source of sugar (e.g. 25-27% rapeseed cake - wherein rapeseed cake contains low molecular weight sugars, oligosaccharides, and storage polysaccharide) [para. bridging pgs. 1-2] and 0.5% to 60% of a fertilizer nutrient (e.g. total proportion of fertilizer is 46%) [pg. 1, section 2] to the soil and 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05 I.].
In regard to claim 16, Huang teaches the method of claim 1, comprising an increase in crop yield of up to 100% (e.g.an increase of 81.8%) compared to the seed or seedling grown without the seed grind, the source of carbon dioxide and the sugar [pg. 4, last para.].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 1104196-A) in view of Reid et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0174697 A1 – cited in 09/14/2023)
In regard to claim 12, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of nitrogen comprised of urea and ammonium bicarbonate [pg. 1, section 2] and a bicarbonate comprising sodium bicarbonate [pg. 2, section 7].
The reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the seed grind composition further comprises stearic acid and magnesium stearate. However, Reid et al. is directed to a dry composition of a plant and/or soil amendment [Abstract]. Flow agents can be added including magnesium stearate and stearic acid [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including a stearic acid and/or magnesium stearate component to Huang’s fertilizer composition because these flow agents reduce attractive and/or frictional forces between particles and/or absorb moisture [Reid, Paragraph 0083]. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the amount of stearic components through routine optimization to achieve desirable flow characteristics within Huang’s composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (pg. 2, last para.) the percentages recited in claims 7 and 14-15 are correct and easily understood by a skilled artisan but does not describe how they would be understood. The claims remain rejected for lacking a basis for determining the claimed percentages. These arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define an unambiguous invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is definite.
Applicants arguments directed to the prior art references are primarily presented in the Rule 132 Declaration (03/05/2026). Applicant argues the claimed invention is not taught or suggested by the combination of references for the reasons set forth in the Rule 132 Declaration. It is noted that the
arguments set forth in the Rule 132 Declaration are substantially the same as those set
forth in the prior filed remarks (08/20/2025) already considered. The verbatim repetition of old arguments is not considered a "bona fide attempt to advance prosecution" and may be treated as a failure to respond to an office action. To be considered a proper reply, Applicant should submit an argument under the heading "Remarks" presenting new arguments, amendments, or evidence.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/05/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon the teachings of Huang as set forth in the last Office action because:
Declarant argues [para. 0006] Huang does not disclose the step of applying a seed grind because Huang teaches adding the seed grind to a tower and allowing yeast to consume the seed grind. Declarant asserts [0007] starch in combination with yeast reacts to form weak sugars and carbon dioxide in fermentation. This argument is not persuasive. Huang describes the complete fertilizer which comprises starches (corn flour, rice flour, sorghum flour, etc.) [clm. 1] as discrete components and does not describe a step of allowing yeast to consume the seed grind. Huang does not teach or suggest a rice flour fermentation reaction as argued by Applicant and instead describes a fertilizer comprising the seed grind/starch mixed and applied as required by the claims.
To address the allegation of a fermentation reaction, the machine translation of Huang refers to the component 酒曲 which appears in the translated document as fermentation starter (*Jiuqu*) [pg. 1, section 1]. This is a type of yeast which is often a starter used in the production of traditional Chinese alcoholic beverages. One of skill in the art would not infer the inclusion of the microbial consortium implies alcoholic fermentation because the Huang reference is directed to a fertilizer composition and not a fermented alcohol.
Declarant argues [0011] seed grind is never added to the soil because they are added only to the active tower and reacted with yeast during fermentation. In response to this argument there is no recitation in the Huang prior art of yeast fermentation and one of skill in the art would not infer a fermentation process as alleged. What is explicitly disclosed by Huang is a seed grind comprised of a whole seed or a whole seed without a seed coating (e.g. corn flour, rice grain flour, sorghum flour, soybean powder) [para. bridging pgs. 1-2]. Huang describes the microbial inoculum, chemical fertilizers, starch, protein powder, oil cakes, wood shavings, growth promoters, trace elements, pulverized crop stalks, and neutralizing agents are loaded into a mixer and thoroughly blended to achieve a uniform mixture [pg. 3, section 5] which is packed and shipped. Example 1 of Huang applies 10kg/mu of this mixed fertilizer to the land [pg. 4].
Declarant argues [0013] Huang adds seed grinds to a tower and not to the soil. This argument is not persuasive. Huang gives the particular name “Active Tower-Granulated Complete-Spectrum Fertilizer” to the fertilizer product applied to soil but does not anywhere teach application to a reaction tower as alleged by Declarant. One of skill in the art would understand this description is describing a product that is in granulated form via tower granulation (“tower-granulated”).
Arguments presented in paras. [0016] – [0023] are similarly directed to the prior art’s alleged fermentation reaction which the Examiner has already addressed as unpersuasive.
Declarant’s unexpected high yields [0024] refer only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
For these reasons Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The machine translations of CN-1104196 are made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: machine translation by Google Patents, machine translation by Clarivate Analytics.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 March 12, 2026