DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Petition under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) The petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) filed 8 February 2026 was GRANTED. The application is SPECIAL . Election/Restrictions Claims 1-32 are pending in the present application. Claims 28-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 February 2026. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “10 wt % to 90 w%”, but should be amended to “10 wt % to 90 wt %”; and claims 9-10 state “kPa.m 2 /g” , but should be amended to “kPa·m 2 /g”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-2, 4-7, 9-15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tripathi et al. ( Appita Journal, 2019). Regarding claim s 1 -2, 4-5 and 13 -14 , Tripathi et al. disclose blending softwood pulp, agro pulp (wheat straw and sugarcane bagasse) and banana stem pulp to form paper, wherein the banana stem pulp has an average fiber length of 2.35 or 2.37 mm, and the amount of banana stem pulp in the blend is 5-20 wt. % (pg. 165, 171-172; Tables 4 and 6). Regarding claim 14 , it is noted that the method for disintegrating the banana pulp fibers is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. Regarding claims 6-7 and 9-1 2 , Tripathi et al. disclose that the paper made from the blended pulp had an air resistance of 34-48 sec/100 ml , a burst index of 2.46-2.63 kN /g , and a grammage of 47.6-48.5 g/m 2 (Table s 6 -7 ). Regarding claim 15 , Tripathi et al. disclose that the paper made from the blended pulp had a CSF of 470-485 (Table 6). Regarding claim 27 , Tripathi et al. disclose a paper, which is within the scope of a liner for use in a planting container. A paper would be suitable for placement into a planting container, and therefore is within the scope of the instantly claimed liner. 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 . 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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 13-14 , 17, 22 and 2 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) . Regarding claim 1 , Mitchell teaches that straight and strong fibers from the stems or stalks of certain plants, such as the banana plant, may be combined with the comparatively crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances from the leaves of fleshy leafed plants, and a strong, durable and efficient paper, or pulp board produced, of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength (pg. 1, ln. 20-32; pg. 2, ln. 91- 102 ). Mitchell further teaches that the plant fibers can be combined with waste paper stock, wherein the proportions of materials used is about 60 percent of the straight fibers, about 20 percent of the bagasse of sisal leaves, and about 20 percent of waste paper stock (pg. 2, ln. 21-38, 73-77). Mitchell teaches that the fibers are reduced to a proper size, but does not explicitly disclose that at least 50% of the lignocellulosic fibers have an average length of from 0.5 to 50 mm, as instantly claimed. Hondroulis et al. teach a process for converting tropical materials, such as banana, into fibers useful in paper-making, textiles, the absorption of liquids, etc. (Abstract; Claims). Hondroulis et al. teach that the fibers produced from banana are first cut, ground, shredded or otherwise reduced into a mass of separated fibers, wherein the stalks are cut into fibers ranging from 0.25 to 1 inch (~6.3 to 25.4 mm) in length (col. 4, ln. 54-60). A second optional reducer pulverizes the fibers reducing them to refined fibers of 0.125 to 0.25 inches (~3.2-6.4 mm) in length (col. 6, ln. 1-10). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to reduce the fibers according to Mitchell to about 3.2 to 25.4 mm, as reasonably taught by Hondroulis et al. Such would have been obvious because Mitchell and Hondroulis et al. both teach processes for converting banana plant material into fibers for paper-making, pulp board, etc. Mitchell teaches reducing the fibers to a proper size, and Hondroulis et al. teach reducing the fibers to about 3.2 to about 25.4 mm. Thus, it would have been obvious to reduce the fibers of Mitchell to about 3.2 to about 25.4 mm. Regarding claim 2 , Mitchell teaches the combination of plant fibers with waste paper stock (pg. 2, ln. 21-38, 73-77). Regarding claim 4 , Mitchell teaches that the straight and strong fibers from plants include bagasse of sugar cane, banana, palm tree, cactus and other plants, and the crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances include the bagasse of the leaves of the sisal or henequen plants (pg. 1, ln. 20-32; pg. 2, ln. 91-102). Hondroulis et al. teach recovery of useful fiber from agricultural waste products produced in the cultivation of banana, plantain, pineapple, coconut, palm and other tropical fruit bearing crops (col. 2, ln. 45-54; col. 4, ln. 35-44). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to combine the fibers from banana stems or stalks with fibers from other tropical plants, as well as with the crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances from the bagasse of the leaves of the sisal or henequen plants. Regarding claim 5 , Mitchell teaches that the fibers include the bagasse of sugar cane, and the crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances include the bagasse of the leaves of the sisal or henequen plants. Regarding claim 8 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a water sorbency of at least 0.1 mg/gm, and a water absorbency of at least 0.01 mg/gm, as instantly claimed. Hondroulis et al. teach that the materials produced from the fibers of tropical materials are suitable for the absorption of liquids (Abstract; col. 2, ln. 52-54; col. 3, ln. 1; col. 5, ln. 20-22). Regarding claim 13 , Mitchell teaches that the straight and strong fibers are from the stalks or trunks of the banana plant (pg. 2 , ln. 96-102 ). Hondroulis et al. teach that the fiber from agricultural waste products include banana, plantain or Cavendish plant stalks, pineapple crowns, coconut palm or palmetto fronds or the pinzote (fruit bearing body) of palm (col. 2, ln. 45-54). Regarding claim 14 , Mitchell teaches the reduction to proper size by means of shredders, decorticators, grinders, beaters or pulverizing machines (pg. 2, ln. 103-108). Hondroulis et al. teach reducing the size of the fibers in a reducer, which may consist of a bladed roller that draws the stalks or crowns into a series of rotating ¼” steel knives or blades (col. 4, ln. 54-61). Regarding claim 17 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a small molecule absorbance capacity of at least 1 mg/gm for neutral compounds, at least 300 µg/gm for positively charged compounds, and at least 150 µg/gm for negatively charged compounds, as instantly claimed. Hondroulis et al. teach that the materials produced from the fibers of tropical materials are suitable for the absorption of liquids (Abstract; col. 2, ln. 52-54; col. 3, ln. 1; col. 5, ln. 20-22). Regarding claim 22 , Mitchell teaches that the smaller fibers of the leaves of the sisal or henquen plant, owing to the fleshy nature of said leaves, interlock and interlace with the other fibers, thereby firmly binding the straight fibers together into a composition paper or pulp board of comparatively great strength and durability (pg. 1, ln. 33-49). Regarding claim 27 , Mitchell teaches composition paper or pulp boards. A paper would be suitable for placement into a planting container, and therefore is within the scope of the instantly claimed liner. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare solid phase matrix and varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers to produce a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength to meet various commercial requirements, as suggested by Mitchell. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the absorbancy of the matrix for liquids and small molecules through optimization of the proportions of fibers. Claim s 3 , 18-19 , 21 and 2 3-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 22 and 27 above, further in view of Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020) . Regarding claim 3 , Mitchell teaches waste paper stock, but does not explicitly disclose wood or recovered paper fibers compris ing old corrugated cardboard , as instantly claimed. Labayen teaches the efficacy of using textile waste blended with paper waste, such as corrugated cardboard, to form biodegradable seedling pots (Abstract). Labayen teaches that cellulose fibers from waste paper that are recycled 5-6 times become short and weak due to repeated treatment and drying operations. These deteriorated cellulose fibers cannot be recycled and eventually end up in landfills. Discarded textile and paper waste are considered fiber-rich resources that can be potentially downcycled into valuable products and thereby promote landfill disposal diversion (pg. 20). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to use old corrugated cardboard as the waste paper in Mitchell in order to promote landfill disposal diversion and because it is a fiber-rich resource , as suggested by Labayen . Regarding claims 18-19 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose an agrochemical internalized to the solid phase matrix, as instantly claimed. Labayen teaches that bio-containers blended with valuable components that could enhance plant growth by slow release fertilizer and/or with soil conditioning effect, fungicides, insecticides and plant growth regulators are still being investigated. A fertilizer or soil conditioning effect during the pot decomposition is an added beneficial property of a seedling pot (pg. 46-47). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to incorporate a fertilizer, fungicide, insecticide and/or plant growth regulator in the matrix according to Mitchell as reasonably suggested by Labayen . Regarding claim 21 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a half-life of the agrochemical in the soil is increased by at least 200%, as instantly claimed. However, Labayen teaches inclusion of agrochemicals in the solid phase matrix. The compositions would comprise the same components as instantly claimed and in the absence of evidence to the contrary would have an increased half-life by at least 200%. Regarding claims 23-24 , Mitchell and Labayen do not explicitly disclose pores having an average diameter of 1 to 3 mm or a density of 200 to 600 pores per m 2 , as instantly claimed. Labayen teaches plantable bio-containers planted directly into the ground, which eliminates the need to remove the pot before planting. Once planted, the pot can be easily broken down and allow the roots to penetrate and pass through the container walls into the surrounding soil to eliminate root damage and transplanting fatigue. The plantable containers are also durable enough for short-term production to withstand waterings and handling requirements (pg. 44). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to determine through routine experimentation the optimum pore size and density in order for the solid phase matrix to be suitable for handling and planting, while also being biodegradable. Claim s 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) and Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 13-14, 17-19, 21-2 4 and 27 above, further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2006/ 061164 A1 ) . Regarding claim 20 , Labayen does not explicitly disclose abamectin or fluopyram incorporated into their matrix, as instantly claimed. Kim et al. teach a mat for seeds comprising paper fibers, wherein the mat is also impregnated with a fungicide and/or animal pesticide, such as abamectin (Abstract; pg. 1, ln. 22-33; pg. 8, ln. 23; pg. 13, ln. 7; Claims 1 and 9). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to select an animal pesticide, such as abamectin, for incorporation into the solid phase matrix, as reasonably suggested by Kim et al. Kim et al. teach that abamectin is among the preferred animal pesticides for incorporation into a solid phase matrix for seeds, wherein the pesticides protect the seed. Regarding claim 25 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a matrix folded into a pouch sized to accommodate a root stock, plant seed, seed piece, seedling, or slip, as instantly claimed. Labayen teaches forming biodegradable pots and sheets , and further teaches plantable bio-containers that can be planted directly into the ground eliminating the need to remove the pot before planting (pg. 44) . Labayen teaches containers shaped to receive the seed and be planted into the soil, wherein the pot can be easily broken down and allow the roots to penetrate and pass through into the surrounding soil (pg. 44). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare the pot and/or sheet according to Labayen and to fold it or shape it to hold the seed, and then to plant the matrix in the soil. It is noted that the claims and specification do not provide additional limitations for the pouch. Therefore, the pot according to Labayen , which has angles and contains the seed, is within the scope of the pouch instantly claimed. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) and Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 20, 22-25 and 27 above, further in view of Dias et al. (Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2018). Regarding claim 26 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose the matrix is shredded or configured as a pellet for sustained release of an agrochemical in or on soil, as instantly claimed. Dias et al. teach banana tree fiber pellets comprising urea for the slow release of fertilizer (pg. 711). Dias et al. teach that there is a growing need in the use of fertilizers for soil improvement and increase in agricultural production by area. Among the fertilizers used in agriculture, urea is the one with the greatest problems because of its instability, occurring nitrogen loss by volatilization and the enzymatic hydrolysis or ions leaching to the soil solution (pg. 705). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a solid phase matrix comprising banana fiber and an agrochemical compound, such as urea, wherein the agrochemical compound is slowly released into the soil, as reasonably suggested by Dias et al. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 22 and 27 above, further in view of Nathan et al. ( International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2020; published online 24 April 2019 ) and Espinosa et al. ( Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018 ) . Regarding claim s 9 -1 2 , Mitchell teaches that by varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers, a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength, may be produced to meet various commercial requirements (pg. 1, ln. 50-57). Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a burst index less than 15 , or less than 5 kPa·m 2 /g , and a basis weight less than 200 gsm , or less than 125 gsm , as instantly claimed. Nathan et al. teach agro -waste raw materials for enhancing the quality of recycled paper (Abstract). Nathan et al. teach combining banana fiber pulp with paper waste pulp to form thin sheets of recycled paper (pg. 197, col. 1). The quality of the recycled paper made by supplementation with agro -wastes was analyzed, and the banana fiber agro -waste combined with paper waste yielded a grammage of 155 gsm and a burst factor of 7.5 (Table 3). Espinosa et al. teach the addition of lignocellulosic micro/nanofibers (LCMNF) from banana leaf residue to recycled paper pulp in order to recover the original properties of fluting paper (Abstract). Espinosa et al. teach that the burst index of recycled fluting with different percentages of LCMNF was between 1.8 and 2.47 Kpa·m 2 /g (Fig. 1; Table 5). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare a solid phase matrix comprising banana pulp fibers and paper waste wherein the proportions of the fibers are varied according to Mitchell in order to optimize the stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength, to meet various commercial requirements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the optimum burst index and basis weight for the solid phase matrix based on the desired use. As taught by Nathan et al. and Espinosa et al., varying the composition and proportions can affect the burst index as well as basis weight. Claims 6-7 , 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 22 and 27 above, further in view of Tripathi et al. ( Appita Journal, 2019 ). Regarding claims 6-7 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose an air resistance less than 500 Gs , or less than 250 Gs , as instantly claimed. Tripathi et al. teach banana stem pulp blended with softwood and mixed agro resulting in an air resistance of 21-48 s/100 ml (Table 6). Regarding claims 9-12 , Mitchell teaches that by varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers, a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength, may be produced to meet various commercial requirements (pg. 1, ln. 50-57). Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a burst index less than 15, or less than 5 kPa·m 2 /g, and a basis weight of less than 200 gsm , or less than 125 gsm , as instantly claimed. Tripathi et al. teach that the paper made from the blended pulp had an air resistance of 34-48 sec/100 ml, a burst index of 2.46-2.63 kN /g, and a grammage of 47.6-48.5 g/m 2 (Tables 6-7). Regarding claims 15-16 , Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a Canadian Standard Method test freeness of from 300-700, or from 500-650, as instantly claimed. Tripathi et al. teach that the paper made from the blended pulp with varying proportions of softwood, mixed agro and banana stem had a CSF of 350-550 (Table 6). It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to vary the proportions of banana pulp fibers and additional fibers to optimize the air resistance, burst index, basis weight and CSF, as reasonably suggested by Mitchell and Tripathi et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimum ratios of fibers to achieve the desired properties based on the intended use of the solid phase matrix. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9924 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sue Liu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /N. W.S / Examiner, Art Unit 1616 /Mina Haghighatian/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616