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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
The amendment on February 16, 2024 is acknowledged. There are no canceled, amended or new claims. Claims 1-17 are subjected to examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on November 13, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
At the time of the instant Office action, no information disclosure statement (IDS) had been received.
Objections
Claim 1 is objected because there is a numbering issue connected the claim. Claim 1 has additional numbers that are identical to other claims [1), 2), 3)]. See Figure below.
Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is apparent that the Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 strain is required to practice the claimed invention. As such, the biological material must be known and readily available or obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification, or otherwise known and readily available to the public. If it is not so obtainable or available, the requirements of USC 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, first paragraph, may be satisfied by a deposit of the Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 strain.
Further, the specification teaches that “Using Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 as a template, primers were designed for the upstream and downstream flanking homologous arm regions of the target genes required for the locillomycin, butirosin, macrolactin H, and bacillaene. “By conducting silencing expression on the synthetic gene clusters of the above metabolites, their antagonism against 7 major pathogenic microorganisms was verified after fermentation” and performing biocontrol confrontations on the silencing expression of the biosynthetic gene clusters of the aforementioned metabolites in Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 (as shown in Table 3) to verify their biocontrol differences”. Even though, the specification teaches primers and sequences from Bacillus velezensis XY40-1, there is no evidence that the artesian can use the invention without Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 because the specification only teaches the bacterial strain, Bacillus velezensis XY40-1. In addition, there is no indication that the genome of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 was modified to be used in the invention. The silencing expression on the synthetic gene clusters of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 was merely used to validate the product synthesis gene cluster as taught in the specification. See paragraph [0073-0078]. Thus, it appears that the wild-type Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 was used in the invention.
The process disclosed in the specification does not appear to be repeatable, it is not clear that the invention will work with commonly available material and it is not apparent if the biological materials considered necessary to make and use the invention is both known and readily available to the public.
It is noted that Applicants have deposited biological material but there is no indication in the specification as to public availability. Therefore, a deposit at a recognized depositary may be made for to overcome this rejection.
If the deposit is made under the terms of the Budapest Treaty, then a statement, affidavit or declaration by Applicants, or by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, or by someone in the position to corroborate the facts of the deposit, that the instant invention will be irrevocably and without restriction released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein.
If the deposit is a non-Budapest Treaty deposit, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809 and MPEP 2402-2411.05, a statement, affidavit or declaration by Applicant, by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, or by someone in a position to corroborate the facts of the deposit would satisfy the requirements herein by stating and providing that:
(a) During the pendency of the application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) All restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) The deposit will be maintained in a public depositary for a period of 30 years, or 5 years after the last request or for the enforceable life of the patent, whichever is longer; and
(d) Provide evidence of the test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit (see 37 CFR 1.807).
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, 4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li1 et al. (US 20230337682 A1; hereafter Li; PTO-892).
As claims 1, Li1 teaches “a strain of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1, a fermentation method, a fermentation product and its application. The Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 was deposited in the China Center for Type Culture Collection on Mar. 29, 2022, with the deposited number of CCTCC NO: M 2022342, and was isolated from the leaves of pepper in Xiangyan Pepper Base, Changsha City, Hunan Province.
Li1 teaches “The microbial inoculum includes the Bacillus velezensis XY40-1”. See paragraph [0010].
Li1 teaches “the microbial inoculum is a liquid microbial inoculum or a solid microbial inoculum”. See paragraph [0011].
Li1 teaches “the plant pathogen includes any one of Geotrichum candidum, Curvularia and Neopestalotiopsis formicarum”. See paragraph [0013].
Li1 teaches “the strain is inoculated to LB solid plate medium for activation, and cultured at 30° C. for 24 hours. A ring is taken from the activation plate and inoculated into the LB liquid medium with a volume of 50 mL (specification: 100 mL triangular flask), shaking for 24 h at 30° C. and 160 rpm in a shaking table for next use”. See paragraph [0044].
Li1 teaches “A fermentation method of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1, which is characterized in that the method comprises the following steps: (1) preparing of fermentation medium: a formula of the fermentation medium is 0.700% glucose, 1.000% soybean meal, 0.500% magnesium sulfate heptahydrate and 0.014% zinc sulfate heptahydrate; pH is 6.5-7.5; (2) inoculating Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 with an inoculation amount of 0.7-1.3% into the fermentation medium for fermentation; a fermentation temperature is 30-39° C.; a fermentation speed is 200-240rpm; a fermentation time is 22-28 hours”. See claim 1. See table 1.
Li1 teaches “The basic conditions for strain culture are as follows: the seed solution is inoculated into LB liquid medium with 0.5% of the inoculation amount, filling 50% (V/V) of the solution, and the solution is incubated on a shaking table at 30° C. and 160 rpm for 24 hours. Each treatment has 3 replicates. The other elements are unchanged, and the carbon source, the nitrogen source and the inorganic salt in the basic medium are replaced with different carbon source, nitrogen source and inorganic salt respectively. The alternative carbon, nitrogen and inorganic salts and their corresponding prices are as follows: molasses 1.1 yuan/kg, corn starch 1.7 yuan/kg, sucrose 1.8 yuan/kg, glucose 2.3 yuan/kg; soybean meal 2 yuan/kg, corn steep liquor powder 2.9 yuan/kg; magnesium sulfate heptahydrate 0.4 yuan/kg, sodium chloride 0.7 yuan/kg, calcium carbonate 1.8 yuan/kg, manganese sulfate 3.2 yuan/kg. The addition amount of replacement carbon source, nitrogen source and inorganic salt is 0.5%, 1% and 1% respectively. See paragraph [0047].
Li1 teaches Isolation, Identification, Purification and Preservation of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1. See paragraph [0031].
Li1 teaches optimization of Fermentation Conditions of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1, see paragraph [0040].
Li1 teaches experimental groups design Serial number Nitrogen source Carbon source Inorganic. Salt. See Table 1.
Li1 teaches orthogonal test optimization. Li teaches that “After finding out the best carbon source, nitrogen source and inorganic salt by single factor test, orthogonal test is designed to further determine the best ratio. See paragraph [0048-0049]; Tables 2-3.
Li1 teaches Supplement and Optimization of Trace Elements, pH, temperature, rotation, inoculation test. See paragraph [0051-0059]; Table 7-11.
As claim 4, 7, 8-9, Li1 teaches viable count of 109 CFU/ml Bacillus velezensis. See table 4-11. Paragraph [0061].
Li1 teaches “an application of the Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 or the microbial inoculum containing Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 in inhibiting the growth of plant pathogens.” See paragraph [0012].
Li1 teaches antagonism Test of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 and its fermentation metabolite against Phytophthora, Geotrichum candidum, Neopestalotiopsis formicarum and Curvularia. See paragraph [0039].
Li1 teaches “the antagonistic effect of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 and its fermentation metabolite (containing norgamycin, rifaximin, selamectin, baicalin and amphotericin P-3) against phytophthora pestis, geotrichum candidum, coconut gray spot and curvularia lunata. See Figures 4-6 and Table 14-18. Li1 teaches “Through the plate confrontation cultivation method, the Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 and its fermentation metabolite of the disclosure have good antagonism against geotrichum candidum, coconut gray spot and curvularia lunata”. See paragraph [0073].
As claims 8-9, Li1 teaches “The root and leaf of pepper are inoculated with phytophthora capsici after being scratched, and are divided into experimental group and control group. The root and leaf of citrus are inoculated with Geotrichum candidum after being scratched, and are divided into experimental group and control group. The roots and leaves of coconuts are inoculated with Neopestalotiopsis formicarum after being scratched, and are divided into experimental group and control group. The root and leaf of corn are inoculated with Curvularia after being scratched, and are divided into experimental group and control group. The compound mixture are sprayed on the roots and leaves of the plants in the experimental group, to observe the incidence of the disease in the experimental group and the control group, and the disease inhibition rate are calculated after 25 days later”. See paragraph [0072].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li1 et al. (US 20230337682 A1; hereafter Li; PTO-892) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 9 in view of Li2 et al. (Published 2022; hereafter; Li2; PTO-892).
Li1 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, 4, 7, 9 as fully disclosed above and incorporated herein.
However, Li1 does not teach PQQ as claim 2-3.
Li2 teaches insights into Pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) effects on soil nutrients and pathogens from pepper monocropping soil under anaerobic and aerobic conditions, which is pertinent to claims 2-3.
Li2 teaches Pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ), a redox cofactor in some bacteria involved in glucose metabolism and phosphorus mineralization, could be anticipated to alter soil ecosystems to a certain extent, which is pertinent to claims 2-3.
Li2 teaches effects of PQQ regimes on soil microbial community composition, which is pertinent to claims 2-3.
Li2 teaches that PQQ application both in aerobic/anaerobic conditions could improve soil available nutrients and suppress soil pathogens in pepper monocropping soils, which is pertinent to claims 2-3.
Li2 teaches that “in terms of pathogens, relative to control, both PQQ treatments suppressed the abundances of pathogens, of which FL_PQQ (anaerobic) treatment significantly decreased the abundance of the pathotrophic fungal by 64% and the abundance of Fusarium oxysporum by 57%, largely attributed to the increase of organic acid generators (Oxobacter, Hydrogenispora) and potential antagonists (Bacillus, Talaromyces)”, which is pertinent to claims 2-3.
Li2 teaches that “after FL_PQQ treatment, some denitrifying bacteria, such as Bacillus were enriched, which meant a strong denitrifying ability, and soil AN existed mostly in form of NH4+-N”, which is pertinent to claims 2-3.
Li2 teaches that “Oxobacter and Bacillus can produce organic acids or various antibiotics which were supposed to contribute to pathogen inactivation, which is pertinent to claims 2-3.
It would be obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Li1 and Li2, thereby arriving at the invention of claims 2-3. Since the PQQ treatments of Li2 were shown to be effective for suppressing the abundances of pathogens, and increased the abundance of antagonists, such as Bacillus on soil microbial community composition, it would have been obvious to substitute these known equivalents; see MPEP 2144.06.
See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li1 et al. (US 20230337682 A1; hereafter Li; PTO-892) as applied to claim 1, 4, 7, 9, 12 in view of Li2 et al. (Published 2022; hereafter; Li2; PTO-892) and further view of Alenezi et al. (Published 2021; hereafter Alenezi; PTO-892).
Li1 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, 4, 7, 9 as fully disclosed above and incorporated herein.
However, Li1 does not teach locillomycin, bacillaene, butirosin, and macrolactin H and “biosynthetic” gene cluster and SEQ ID NOs: 1-27, and the NRPS-TransAT-PKS hetero-gene cluster is derived from the 1730988-1831722 base sequence of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1.
Alenezi teaches that “The novel phylogenetic placement of B. velezensis bacteria indicated that it shares a close phylogenomic resemblance with B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, B. methylotrophicus, and B. oryzicola”. All these strains were regrouped in a ‘B. amyloliquefaciens operational group’ containing three tightly linked branches including B. velezensis, B. amyloliquefaciens, and B. siamensis, which is pertinent to claim 5-6.
Alenezi teaches that “using a selected collection of 130 B. velezensis bacterial genomes publicly available in GenBank we performed phylogenomic analysis of the collection to decipher infra-species diversity of B. velezensis.
Alenezi teaches that B. velezensis strains despite being isolated from different substrates (soil, water and plant material) represent the same species. Additionally, secondary metabolite clusters, as well as comparative genomic analysis allowed us to conclude that the species is represented by a very dynamic open pan genome. These findings legitimate the ongoing genomic sequencing efforts of newly discovered strains that is shading the light on the full biotechnological potential of the species”.
Alenezi teaches “The genetic mechanisms of B. velezensis genes encoding beneficial functions to plants were explored through genome mining. B. velezensis strains were endowed with plant growth promoting capacities”. “The clusters were identified through antiSMASH, non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS), polyketide synthetases (PKS), trans-Acyl Transferase Polyketide Synthetase (TransATPKS), and several other tools. This finding is in accordance with other reports confirming the secondary metabolites potentials of B. velezensis strains, which is pertinent to claims 5-6. See for example Supplementary Figure 1.
Alenezi teaches that “Clustering of the B. velezensis core- and accessory genome resulted in a high number of unknown secondary metabolites and proved that almost all secondary metabolites were synthesized by the accessory genome. A set of secondary metabolites were common in several B. velezensis bacteria, such as cyclic lipopeptides (surfactin, fengycin, bacillibactin, and bacilycin), polyketides (difficidin, macrolactin, and bacillaene) and some others were specific for few bacteria (locillomycin, subtilin, mersacidin, bacillomycin, and amylocyclicin), which is pertinent to claims 5-6. See for example, Supplementary Figure 1.
In addition, SEQ ID NOs: 1-27, and the NRPS-TransAT-PKS “heterogene” cluster derived from the 1730988-1831722 base sequence of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 were searched and as taught by claim 6, the sequences originally belong to Bacillus velezensis XY40-1. The searched sequences have 100% match with the sequences present in the genome of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1.
*The search results showing the sequence alignments have not been added to this office action due to the number of sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 1-27 and the NRPS-TransAT-PKS “heterogene” cluster derived from the 1730988-1831722 base sequence of Bacillus velezensis XY40-1) and the length of the clusters of genes.
It would be obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Li1, thereby arriving at the invention of claims 5-6. Since the genome of B. velezensis has the clusters of genes producing active metabolites such as ocillomycin, bacillaene, butirosin, and macrolactin H. as taught by Alenezi, it would have been obvious to substitute these known equivalents; see MPEP 2144.06.
See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li1 et al. (US 20230337682 A1; hereafter Li; PTO-892) as applied to claim 1, 4, 7, 9, 12 in view of Li2 et al. (Published 2022; hereafter; Li2; PTO-892) and further view of Ahmed et al. (WO2021061439A1; hereafter Ahmed; PTO-892) as evidenced by Rocha et al. (Published 2019; hereafter Rocha; PTO-892).
Li1 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, 4, 7, 9 as fully disclosed above and incorporated herein.
However, Li1 teaches does not teach 3.5%-3.8% of wetting dispersant, 6%-8% of thickening agent, 0.16%-0.2% of preservative, 4%-5% of antifreeze, 0.5%-0.6% of ultraviolet protectant, 0.15-0.25% of penetrant, 6.6-7% of synergist, 0.1%-0.5% of defoamer as claim 10.
Li1 does not teach the wetting dispersant is tween+sodium lignosulfonate, a mass ratio of the tween to the sodium lignosulfonate is 1: (0.75-0.9); the thickening agent is a 2% xanthan gum mother liquor; the preservative is casson preservative; the antifreeze is ethylene glycol; the ultraviolet protectant is skimmed milk powder; the penetrant is orange peel essential oil; the synergist is lactose peptide+butanol ester, wherein a mass ratio of the lactose peptide to the butanol ester is 5:95; and the defoamer is dimethyl silicone oil as claim 11.
Li1 does not teach a microbial seed coating agent containing a microbial inoculant containing Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 as claim 12.
Li1 does not teach the microbial seed coating agent according to claim 12, wherein the microbial seed coating agent further comprises the following mass concentration components: 3.5%-3.8% of wetting dispersant, 6%-8% of thickening agent, 0.16%-0.2% of preservative, 4%-5% of antifreeze, 0.5%-0.6% of ultraviolet protectant, 0.1%-0.5% of defoamer, 4%-10% of film-forming agent, 0.2%-1% of warning color, 0.05%-0.15% of synergist as claim 13.
Li1 does not teach the wetting dispersant is tween+sodium lignosulfonate, wherein a mass ratio of the tween to the sodium lignosulfonate is 1: (0.75-0.9); the thickening agent is a 2% xanthan gum mother liquor; the preservative is casson preservative; the antifreeze is ethylene glycol; the ultraviolet protectant is skimmed milk powder; the defoamer is dimethyl silicone oil; the film-forming agent is polyvinyl pyrrolidone; the warning color is alkaline fuchsin; and the synergist is gibberellin as claim 14.
Li1 does not teach the microbial seed coating agent is applied in seeds of pepper, eggplant, or cabbage as claim 15.
Li1 does not teach a weight ratio of the microbial seed coating agent to the seeds is 1: (25-30) as claim 16.
Li1 does not teach the microbial inoculant is used as preservatives as claim 17.
Ahmed teaches aqueous seed coating compositions, the one or more synthetic seed coating polymer than the one or more modified starch. The one or more aqueous seed coating composition comprises additional additives such as but not limited to additional binders, fillers, nutrients, wetting and dispersing additives (sometimes also referred to as pigment dispersant), solvents, plasticizers, emulsifiers, thickeners, coloring agents, anti-foaming agents, biocides, surfactants and/or pigments, which is pertinent to claims 10-17. See for example, claims 4, 5-6, 10, 14-15.
Ahmed teaches “the aqueous seed coating compositions described herein comprise emulsifiers. Emulsifiers suitable for use in the aqueous seed coating composition include, for example, the polysorbate family, which includes Tween 80, diglycol laurate, glyceryl oleate, 2-amino-2-methylol-l, 3 -propanediol stearate, stearyl glutamic acid, and triethanolamine stearate. Other emulsifiers are also typically used in the art of preparing agricultural formulations and compositions”, which is pertinent to claims 10-14. See for example, paragraph [0066].
Ahmed teaches “An aqueous seed coating composition comprising: a binder comprising a modified starch, and an active ingredient; and optionally, wherein the modified starch comprises amylose, amylopectin, or any combination thereof. “the modified starch is etherified, oxidized, methylated, ethylated, propylated, alkoxylated, carboxymethylated, cationic, esterified, acylated, succinated, propylated and phosphate cross-linked, dextrinized, or any combination thereof; optionally, wherein the modified starch has been hydrolyzed by acid, enzyme, oxidant, and/or physically to reduce molecular weight; optionally, wherein the modified starch is acid hydrolyzed-2-hydroxypropyl ether, dextrinized hydrogen octenyl butanedioate, acetate hexadioate, 2-hydroxyl; and optionally, wherein the modified starch is waxy, 100% amylopectin, naturally anionic phosphate, pregelatinized, or any combination thereof”, which is pertinent to claims 10-14. See for example, claims 1-3.
Ahmed teaches Seed coating components, which is pertinent to claims 10-17. See for example paragraph [0046-0077].
Ahmed teaches weight ratio and/or percentages, which is pertinent to claims 10-11, 13, 14, 16. See for example, paragraphs [0046-0054].
Ahmed teaches “The coated seed, wherein the seed is an agricultural seed, a vegetable seed, an herb seed, a wildflower seed, an ornamental seed, a grass seed, a tree seed, a bush seed, or any combination thereof; optionally, wherein the seed is selected from a soybean, cotton, com, peanut, maize, wheat, barley, oat, rye triticale, mustard, sunflower, sugar beet, safflower, millet, chicory, flax, rapeseed, buckwheat, tobacco, cannabis, hemp, alfalfa, signal grass, clover, sorghum, chick pea, bean, pea, vetch, rice, sugar cane, linseed, and any combination thereof; and optionally, wherein the vegetable seed is selected from asparagus, chives, celery, leek, garlic, beetroot, spinach, beet, curly kale, cauliflower, sprouting broccoli, savoy cabbage, white cabbage, red cabbage, kohlrabi, Chinese cabbage, turnip, endive, chicory, water melon, melon, cucumber, marrow, parsley, fennel, pea, bean, radish, black salsify, eggplant, com, carrot, onion, tomato, pepper, lettuce, cucurbit, shallot, broccoli, brassica, brussel sprout, and any combination thereof, which is pertinent to claim 15. See for example claim 10.
Ahmed teaches that “one skilled in the art can ascertain the essential characteristics of this invention, and without departing from the spirit and scope thereof, can make various changes and modifications of the embodiments of the invention to adapt it to various usages and conditions. Thus, various modifications of the embodiments of the invention, in addition to those shown and described herein, will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the foregoing description”, which is pertinent to claims 10-17. See for example paragraph [0079].
Rocha teaches “Seed coating: A tool for delivering beneficial microbes to agricultural crops”, which is pertinent to claims 10-17.
Rocha teaches that “seed coating, a process that consists in covering seeds with low amounts of exogenous materials, is gaining attention as an efficient delivery system for plant beneficial microbes. Microbial seed coating comprises the use of a binder, in some cases a filler, mixed with inocula, and can be done using simple mixing equipment (e.g., cement mixer) or more specialized/sophisticated apparatus (e.g., fluidized bed). Binders/fillers can be used to extend microbial survival. The most reported types of seed coating are seed dressing, film coating, and pelleting. Tested in more than 50 plant species with seeds of different dimensions, forms, textures, and germination types (e.g., cereals, vegetables, fruits, pulses, and other legumes), seed coating has been studied using various species of plant growth-promoting bacteria, rhizobia, Trichoderma, and to a lesser extent mycorrhizal fungi. Most of the studies regarding plant beneficial microbes (PBM) applied via seed coating are aimed at promoting crop growth, yield, and crop protection against pathogens”, which is pertinent to claims 10-17.
Rocha teaches that film coating and encrusting can also be carried out using a fluidized or spouted bed, a cylindrical apparatus where seeds are kept in suspension by a constant vertical/bottom-up hot airflow, while being sprayed with coating materials, which is pertinent to claims 10-17.
Rocha teaches seed coating as any method in which the seed surface is covered by materials (solid or liquid containing dissolved or suspended solids) forming a more or less continuous layer (physical barrier). Applications without the purpose of seed covering, which only comprise the use of microbial inoculants lacking any other compounds such as fillers/carriers or binders, like bacterization by seed immersion in a bacterial suspension (seed soaking) were considered as seed treatments but not seed coating, which is pertinent to claims 10-17.
Rocha teaches synthetic beads made of sodium alginate and skim milk, which are biodegradable and have no negative impact on the environment. The final product that consists of lyophilized beads containing immobilized bacterial inoculants can be coated onto crop seeds and then stored at ambient temperature at least for 3 months without loss of bacterial viability, which is pertinent to claim 11.
Rocha teaches phytohormones, siderophores, and hydrogen cyanide and showing antagonistic effects against certain plant pathogenic fungi, which is pertinent to claim 14.
It would be obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Li1, thereby arriving at the invention of claims 10-17. Since Li1 teaches a method for preparing a microbial inoculant containing Bacillus velezensis XY40-1 to inhibiting growth of pathogenic bacteria and Ahmed teaches seed coating compositions and methods for preservation and protection of seeds, it would have been obvious to substitute these known equivalents; see MPEP 2144.06.
See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) also discloses that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. In the instant case, all elements (i.e., type of components used for seed coatings, such as dispersants, thickening agent, deformers, etc.) were known in the art. In addition, combining the seed coating components and the microbial inoculant, Bacillus velezensis (which are known for being beneficial for crops due to production of secondary metabolites) wherein each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; thus, the results of the combination would be recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRICILA HAUK TEODORO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2784. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:15AM-3:00PM.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at (571) 272-2876. 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.
/PRICILA NMN HAUK TEODORO/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
/HEATHER CALAMITA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights