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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blais (US 2005/0020449). No distinction is seen between the composition disclosed by Blais, and that recited in claims Blais discloses a bacterial fermentation process wherein there is a period of logarithmic or exponential growth until the bacterial population reaches approximately 108 to 109 cells/ml. (See Paragraphs [0029] through [0031].) Blais further teaches Paragraph [0030] and Examples I and II that the bacteria may be Bacillius subtilis. The composition of Blais would contain a fermentation broth, since Blais teaches in Paragraph [0029] that the fermentation process is carried out on a mother stock including the bacteria. The Bacillus subtilis of Blais would constitute a nitrogen-fixing microorganism comprising a biological mechanism for converting atmospheric di-nitrogen into nitrate, ammonium salts, urea and/or ammonia to no less extent than the Bacillus subtilis B4 NRRL B-68031 disclosed in applicant’s specification. The composition of Blais would also include a growth by-product of the microorganism, since Blais teaches in Paragraph [0029] that the fermentation is carried out until a bacterial concentration is reached such that the bacteria are still in their exponential growth phase, just before their growth plateau stage due to either a slowdown in multiplication, a lack of nutrients or an accumulation of toxic fermentation by-products, In any event, it would be obvious to carry out the process of Blais such that includes a growth by-product of the bacteria, since Blais suggests in Paragraph [0029] that the composition may include fermentation by-products.
Regarding claim 15, Blais discloses in the Abstract that the material is granular.
Regarding claim 16, Blais teaches in Paragraphs [0044] and [0045] that the composition is applied to soil.
Regarding claim 17, Blais teaches in Paragraph [0031] that the ferment is brought to a temperature of below 5 C.
Regarding claims 18-20, the attributes recited therein would be inherent in the method of Blais, since Blais discloses Bacillus subtilis as the bacteria to be fermented.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blais. Blais is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore. It would be obvious to provide Bacillus subtilis B4 NRRL B-68031 as the strain of Bacillus subtilis in the composition of WO 2018/049182 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine suitable strains of the microbe.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blais as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CA 3099285.
Regarding claim 9, it would be further obvious from CA 3099285 to include fulvic acid or humic acid in the composition of Blais. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since the compositions of Blais and CA 3099285 are that both entail microbe-based products for enhancing plant growth, and CA 3099285 discloses on page 31, lines 17-24 that the composition can be used in combination with fulvic acid or humic acid.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, it would be further obvious from CA 3099285 to employ Meyerozyma guilliermondii as the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the composition of Blais. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Blais suggests in Paragraph [0004] that any nitrogen-fixing bacteria can be utilized, and CA 3099285 teaches on page 24, lines 5-7 that Meyerozyma guilliermondii is an additional microbe which can be used in combination with nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blais as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al (US 11,118,158). It would be furthere obvious from Miyamoto et al to provide the composition of Blais on crop residue as a carrier. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Miyamoto et al disclose a microbial material which is analogous to that of Blais, and teach at col. 4, lines 33-43 that the material can comprise tea leaves residuals or broken husks.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/049182 A2 in view of Blais. WO 2018/049182 A2 discloses a fermentation broth comprising a microorganism and microbial metabolites produced by the microorganism and/or any residual nutrients. (See page 15, lines 28-32.) The difference between the composition disclosed by WO 2018/049182 A2, and that recited in claims, is that the microorganism should be a nitrogen-fixing microorganism comprising a biological mechanism for converting atmospheric dinitrogen into nitrate, ammonium salts, urea and/or ammonia. Blais discloses a bacterial fermentation process wherein there is a period of logarithmic or exponential growth until the bacterial population reaches approximately 108 to 109 cells/ml. (See Paragraphs [0029] through [0031].) Blais further teaches Paragraph [0030] and Examples I and II that the bacteria may be Bacillius subtilis. It would be obvious from Blais to provide Bacillus subtilis as the microorganism in the composition of WO 2018/049182 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Blais suggests in Paragraph [0004] that the microbe should be a nitrogen fixing bacteria with specific examples of Bacillus subtilis in Examples I and II, and the compositions of WO 2018/049182 A2 and Blais are analogous in that both entail compositions comprising microbes in fermentation broth.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, WO 2018/049182 A2 discloses on page 23, lines 5-16 that the composition can contain biosurfactants such as lipopeptides.
Regarding claim 15, Blais discloses in the Abstract that the composition is in granular form.
Claims 3-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/049182 A2 in view of Blais, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. It would be further obvious from Miyamoto et al to include a nitrogenase, reductase, flavodoxin, electron donor and surfactants such as glucolipids in the composition of WO 2018/049182 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Miyamoto et al disclose such components at col. 15, lines 30-41, and the compositions of Miyamoto et al and WO 2018/049182 A2 are that both entail compositions comprising nitrogen-fixing microbes.
Regarding claim 14, It would be further obvious from Miyamoto et al to provide the composition of WO 2018/049182 A2 on crop residue as a carrier. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Miyamoto et al disclose a microbial material which is analogous to that of Blais, and teach at col. 4, lines 33-43 that the material can comprise tea leaves residuals or broken husks.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/049182 A2 in view of Blais, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CA 3099285.
Regarding claim 9, it would be further obvious from CA 3099285 to include fulvic acid or humic acid in the composition of WO 2018/049182 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since the compositions of WO 2018/049182 A2 and CA 3099285 are analogous in that both entail microbe-based products for enhancing plant growth, and CA 3099285 discloses on page 31, lines 17-24 that the composition can be used in combination with fulvic acid or humic acid.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, it would be further obvious from CA 3099285 to employ Meyerozyma guilliermondii as the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the composition of WO 2018/049182 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Blais suggests in Paragraph [0004] that any nitrogen-fixing bacteria can be utilized, and CA 3099285 teaches on page 24, lines 5-7 that Meyerozyma guilliermondii is an additional microbe which can be used in combination with nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, it would be further obvious from CA 3099285 to employ Meyerozyma guilliermondii as the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the composition of Blais. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Blais suggests in Paragraph [0004] that any nitrogen-fixing bacteria can be utilized, and CA 3099285 teaches on page 24, lines 5-7 that Meyerozyma guilliermondii is an additional microbe which can be used in combination with nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
GB 2,259,302 A is made of record for disclosing that the enzyme responsible for nitrogen fixation is nitrogenase. (See page 1, lines 5-11.)
WO 2021/222643 is made of record for disclosing stable liquid formulations for nitrogen-fixing microorganisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736