DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19-23 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.
Claims 19-23 recites the limitation "The mulch composition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sui et al CN 107502357.
Regarding claim 1, Sui discloses a composition comprising: a plurality of processed leguminous straw particles having particles measuring 0.3-0.7 mm based on total weight of the leguminous straw particles (Sui translation: ¶0016-0017), the composition being a mulch composition.
Regarding claim 2, Sui further discloses one or more mechanical integrity additives (Sui translation, ¶:0053).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Sui further discloses wheat straw (Sui translation: ¶:0017).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sui et al CN 107502357 in view of Morse US 3,889,884.
Regarding claim 3, Sui discloses leguminous peanut straw but fails to disclose alfalfa straw. Morse teaches hammermilled leguminous alfalfa straw (Morse, column 4: lines 58-61). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the leguminous hammermilled alfalfa straw of Morse for the leguminous peanut straw of Sui depending on the crop that was available to the user.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al CN 109997649 in view of Berg et al US 5,891,937.
Regarding claims 10 , 12 and 15, Zhao discloses a composition comprising: a blend of natural straw particles including leguminous soybean straw particles and wheat straw particles (Zhao translation, ¶0014), the soybean straw particles forming about 5-95 wt.% of the composition (Zhao translation, ¶0013); and mechanical integrity additives (Zhao translation, ¶0013); the composition being a slow-release fertilizer composition. Not disclosed are the specific percentages by weight of the straw particles, specific volume percent ratios of the straw particles, or alfalfa straw.
Zhao teaches straw particles being combined in any volume ratio (Zhao translation: ¶0025).
Berg teaches leguminous alfalfa straw of a substrate (Berg, column 7: line 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the alfalfa straw of Berg for the soybean straw of Zhao as to provide an equivalent leguminous straw for the composition of Zhao and to combine alfalfa and wheat straws to meet the limitations of the claimed weight and volume percentages depending on the availability of each crop to the user.
Regarding claim 14, Zhao in view of Berg further discloses the straw being pulverized (Zhao translation: ¶0026) but does not disclose the alfalfa straw being hammermilled. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to hammermill the alfalfa straw, as this technique is known in the art to pulverize straw.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Claims 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed mulch composition comprising milled alfalfa stalk particles having multiple particle sizes as claimed and secondary straw particles.
US 20220380671 of the instant inventor and assignee does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20220380671.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642