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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 1-20 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.
(1) All claims recite, refer, or depend on a claim that recites “a plant growth compound” (emphasis added), but a compound is a single substance, whereas Applicant’s invention is a composition comprising at least 11 ingredients. Rephrasing is suggested.
(2) Independent claims recite or read on “an” or “a” substance, such as for example “an oleic acid” “a gluconic acid.” The Examiner recommends deleting all such recitation of “an” and “a” before an ingredient.
The problem with such claim language is that the articles “an” and “a” are indefinite articles, which are used to refer to non-particular member of a group, e.g., “a movie,” or “an elephant.” But at least the 11 ingredients recited in the independent claims appear to be specific substances, so the indefinite articles do not make sense and raises an indefiniteness issue. For example, there is only one oleic acid, so “an oleic acid” is confusing.
The Examiner suggests the following (markings not shown)1 –
A plant growth composition comprising:
organic sugar cane alcohol;
oleic acid;
organic sunflower lecithin surfactant;
water;
gluconic acid;
sea salt;
lecithin that is different from said organic sunflower lecithin surfactant;
soy oil;
canola oil; and
alfalfa; and molasses.
(3) Claim 2 recites “The plant growth compound system of claim 1” (emphasis added). However, the “system” lacks antecedent basis because claim 1 is not directed to an invention characterized or recited as a “system.” The same issue is noted in claims 3-13.
Similarly, Claim 17 recites “The plant growth compound system of claim 16” (emphasis added). However, the “system” lacks antecedent basis because claim 16 is not directed to an invention characterized or recited as a “system.” The same issue is noted in claims 18-20.
(4) Claim 6 requires 60 gallons of gluconic acid. However, gluconic is a solid at room temperature, so gallon is a confusing unit of measurement for a solid.
(5) Claim 8 recites “the fulvic acid” (emphasis added), which lacks antecedent basis from claim 1. Claim 1 does not require fulvic acid.
(6) Claim 9 is problematic in that there are two lecithins in claim 1. Consequently, it is not entirely clear whether the 10 pounds of “the lecithin” refers to only the second lecithin or all the lecithins. The same issue is noted in claim 17.
(7) Claims 14 recites pre-dissolved alfalfa and claim 16 recites pre-dissolving alfalfa. This is confusing because it reads on dissolving the plant, i.e., the alfalfa plant in solid form passes into solution form by some action. This can only be achieved by using strong solvents that would seem contrary to organic plant growth ingredients such as organic sunflower lecithin surfactant and organic sugar cane alcohol. Specification paragraph 2 states that the present invention relates to organic plant growth compounds. Further clarification is needed for this ingredient or this step to fully set forth the metes and bounds of this claim feature.
For these reasons, all claims must be rejected at this time.
IL 91513 is cited to show the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0620. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's SPE, Fereydoun Sajjadi, can be reached on (571)272-3311. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
1 It was not clear whether fulvic acid should have been included in view of claim 8. This would be up to Applicant to determine. Similar changes are suggested for remaining independent claims.