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 .
Applicants argument filed 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 50, 58-60, 68-70, 76 and 77 were amended. Claims 50-77 are pending examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 11/26/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
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.
Claims 58, 68 and 76 are 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. Claims 58, 68 and 76 recite “the plant nutrient is present in and amount of about 10% to about 70% by weight based on the total weight of the composition taken as 100% by weight” which fails to further limit the scope of the claims upon which they depend (claims 50, 60 and 70). Claims 50, 60 and 70 limit the plant nutrient to comprising “from about 0.01% to about 25% by weight zinc, based on the total weight of the composition taken as 100% by weight, and from about 0.01% to about 25% by weight of manganese, based on the total weight” which is narrower than the limitation recited in claims 58, 68 and 76. 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.
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 58, 60 and 70 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 50, 60 and 70 are indefinite because it claims an average particle size of “less than about 175 µm ” and “less than about 5%”. The phrase “less than about” is indefinite, because it simultaneously claims two different ranges. One of ordinary skill would be unable to ascertain whether the required amount for the average particles size is less than 175 µm or about 175 µm, etc. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 50-55, 58-65, 68-73, 76 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 4,421,544; patented December 20, 1983) in view of Smith et al. (5,916,029; patented June 29, 1999) and Holzfuss et al. (WO 2021/255033; published December 23, 2021).
Applicant claims an inoculant method comprising introducing a composition into an environment and/or contacting a seed with the composition, wherein the composition comprises Bradyrhizobium as an inoculant, a plant nutrient comprising 0.01-25% by weight zinc, 0.01-25% by weight manganese and 10-60% by weight of a carrier comprising corn components, wherein the composition is in a dry particulate form having an average particle size of less than about 175 microns and a moisture content less than about 5% by weight. (claim 50)
Applicant claims seed having an outer surface and comprising a composition comprises Bradyrhizobium as an inoculant, a plant nutrient comprising 0.01-25% by weight zinc, 0.01-25% by weight manganese and 10-60% by weight of a carrier comprising corn components, wherein the composition is in a dry particulate form having an average particle size of less than about 175 microns and a moisture content less than about 5% by weight. (claim 60)
Applicant claims an inoculant composition comprising Bradyrhizobium as an inoculant, a plant nutrient comprising 0.01-25% by weight zinc, 0.01-25% by weight manganese and 10-60% by weight of a carrier comprising corn components, wherein the composition is in a dry particulate form having an average particle size of less than about 175 microns and a moisture content less than about 5% by weight. (claim 70)
With respect to claims 60-65 and 70-75, Jones et al. teach a legume-inoculating composition which may be packaged, transported and stored as a frozen liquid concentrate, a dry powder, or a granular bulk material (column 1, lines 56-65). The compositions are prepared by combining Arthrobotrys with bacterial culture of genus Rhizobium with a carbohydrate nutrient and inorganic minerals that stimulate plant growth, such as, sodium molybdate, ferrous sulphate, potassium phosphates and borax (column 2, lines 1-33). The dry, powdered and granular forms may also include inert fillers or carriers such as montmorillonite (a source of potassium, calcium and magnesium), sodium bentonite (a source of sodium), clays, ground corncobs or ground peat (column 2, lines 34-37). The growth media used to grow the Rhizobium bacterium comprises sodium molybdate and ferrous sulphate as trace minerals (column 3, lines 22-27). The concentration of the bacterium per gram of composition is preferably 1x105-1X109 CFU of Rhizobium bacterium per gram of composition (column 3, lines 52-65). A dry, seed-coating composition suitable for preplant dusting and coating of legumes comprises 23.05% viable liquid culture containing Arthrobotrys fungi and Rhizobia bacteria, 50.8% montmorillonite clay, 25.40 dry sodium bentonite clay and 0.75% dry cornmeal (column 4, lines 13-26; limitation of claims 50, 54, 60, 64, 70 and 72). The mixture is then air dried to a total moisture content of approximately 5% by weight (column 4, lines 17-31). The dry granular is prepared by mixing 1 part by weight of the dry, seed-coating composition with 6 parts by weight of sodium bentonite clay, ground corn cobs (cornmeal), or mixtures of each and substituting equal amounts of ground peat and glucose in place of the clay (column 4, lines 32-44; limitation of claims 58, 68 and 78). The species Rhizobium japonicum was used in tests wherein soybean plants were inoculated (column 5, lines 21-62).
Jones et al. do not specify Bradyrhizobium or that the average particle size is less than about 175 microns. Jones et al. do not specify a plant nutrient comprising 0.01-25% by weight zinc and 0.01-25% by weight manganese. It is for this reason that Smith et al. and Holzfuss et al. are joined.
Smith et al. teaches a process for liquid application of dry microbial preparations to seed wherein superior survival is obtained upon drying the preparation on the seeds (abstract). Nitrogen fixation in leguminous plants is possible because of symbiotic relationship with bacteria of the genus Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium which form nodules on the roots of legumes and Bradyrhizobium japonicum is associated with soybeans (column 1, lines 12-26). Previous methods include mixing an active, living rhizobia culture in a carrier such as humus or peat which maintains bacteria in a living state (column 1, lines 27-34). Other methods prepare a dry, dormant inoculant which produces a composition wherein the water content is less than 5% with clay mixtures of montmorillonite and kaolinite are increasingly preferred (column 1, lines 44-60). The coated seeds obtained by the claimed process have a survival rate and shelf life comparable to dusted seeds but lack disadvantages resulting from release of loose dust in the surrounding atmosphere (column 2, lines 1-3 and 40-42). The preferred microorganism is a strain from Rhizobium or Bradyrhizobium, preferably Bradyrhizobium japonicum (column 3, lines 8-25). The water content of the dry, dormant bacterial composition is less than 5% and mixed with and optional inert powdered carrier (column 3, lines 46-65). A final moisture level of 5% or less is important in maximizing storage life and the dried product is then milled to a final particle size of 0.1-150 microns (column 4, lines 7-10; column 5, lines 30-35). The process includes preparing an aqueous mixture or slurry comprising 0.5-75% weight carbohydrates to improve microbial survival on seed (column 4, lines 31-44). The carbohydrates include starches (column 5, lines 47-52). The seeds coated include soybeans, clovers, alfalfa, peas and garden variety beans (column 6, lines 1-8).
Holzfuss et al. teach an agronomic composition comprising zinc, manganese and microorganisms capable of promoting nutrient uptake by a plant from the soil and seed coated with the composition (abstract). The agronomic composition comprises 10-50 wt% zinc, 10-89 wt% manganese and 0.1-10 wt% one or more microorganisms (page 3, lines 15-26). The microorganisms are preferably bacteria or fungi and include rhizobia (page 7, line 33 through page 8, line 24).
Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss et al. are drawn to methods of making dry seed coatings comprising rhizobia. It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss et al. and select Bradyrhizobium as a bacterium in the dry seed coating and include particles of a particle size of 0.1-150 microns with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss et al. to substitute Bradyrhizobium in place of Rhizobium since Smith et al. teach they are used interchangeable in rhizobia formulations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss et al. to include dry particles with a particles size of 0.1-150 microns because Smith et al. teach dry seed coatings wherein the dried product is then milled to a final particle size of 0.1-150 microns.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss et al. and include 0.01-25% by weight zinc and 0.01-25% by weight manganese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss et al. to include 0.01-25% by weight zinc and 0.01-25% by weight manganese because Holzfuss et al. teach formulating agronomic formulations comprising 10-50 wt% zinc, 10-89 wt% manganese and 0.1-10 wt% one or more microorganisms. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to formulate a compositions comprising 10-25% zinc, 10-25% manganese and 0.1-10% Bradyrhizobium, wherein the remaining ingredient is corn components which can be optimized to amounts of up to 40% of the final composition.
Claims 56, 57, 66, 67, 74 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 4,421,544; patented December 20, 1983) in view of Smith et al. (5,916,029; June 29, 1999) and Holzfuss et al. (WO 2021/255033; published December 23, 2021), as applied to claims 50-55, 58-65, 68-73, 76 and 77 in further view of Williams (US 5,300,127; patented April 5, 1994).
Applicant claims an inoculant method comprising introducing a composition into an environment and/or contacting a seed with the composition, wherein the composition comprises Bradyrhizobium as an inoculant, a plant nutrient comprising 0.01-25% by weight zinc, 0.01-25% by weight manganese and 10-60% by weight of a carrier comprising corn components, wherein the composition is in a dry particulate form having an average particle size of less than about 175 microns and a moisture content less than about 5% by weight. (claim 50)
Applicant claims seed having an outer surface and comprising a composition comprises Bradyrhizobium as an inoculant, a plant nutrient comprising 0.01-25% by weight zinc, 0.01-25% by weight manganese and 10-60% by weight of a carrier comprising corn components, wherein the composition is in a dry particulate form having an average particle size of less than about 175 microns and a moisture content less than about 5% by weight. (claim 60)
Applicant claims an inoculant composition comprising Bradyrhizobium as an inoculant, a plant nutrient comprising 0.01-25% by weight zinc, 0.01-25% by weight manganese and 10-60% by weight of a carrier comprising corn components, wherein the composition is in a dry particulate form having an average particle size of less than about 175 microns and a moisture content less than about 5% by weight. (claim 70)
The teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss are addressed in the above 103 rejection.
Jones et al., Smith et al. and Holzfuss do not teach the compositions further comprise mica coated with TiO2 or a dye or colorant. It is for this reason that Williams is joined.
Williams teaches a soybean seed coated with inoculant composition comprising a carrier, beneficial microorganisms and an adhesive polymeric material which has high average loading of viable organisms per seed (abstract). The carrier is preferably peat, and is alternatively composted of corn cobs (column 2, lines 66-68). The microorganisms are preferably selected from Rhizobium, including Bradyrhizobium (column 3, lines 1-7). It is desirable to incorporate pigments into the coated seeds to distinguish them from other products and the pigments are selected from dyes, such as methyl violet and titanium dioxide-coated micas (lustres) (column 3, lines 8-25).
Jones et al., Smith et al. and Williams are drawn to methods of making dry seed coatings comprising rhizobia. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and William to further include titanium dioxide coated mica and dyes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Jones et al., Smith et al. and Williams to further include titanium dioxide coated mica and dyes because Williams teaches it is desirable to incorporate pigments selected from dyes and titanium dioxide coated mica lustres onto the coated seeds to distinguish the seeds from other products or one of ordinary skill could use the pigments to distinguish the different types of seeds used.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1617