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 § 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.
Claims 16-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosinski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0019765) in view of Ben et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0150749 as cited by Applicant).
For claim 16, Kosinski et al. discloses a method of growing plant seedlings comprising: implanting plant seeds (as discussed in [0062]: “Seeds, seedlings and plant cuttings can be inserted into holes or slits in the plant growth medium.”) in a mixture of cellulose fibers (as discussed in [0033] and [0035]) and an aqueous liquid (as discussed in [0042]: “the method of making the plant growth medium comprises combining a plurality of fiberballs and a cohesion promoter adapted for adhesive bonding”, “the adhesive binder activated by wetting with a liquid”, “the above-listed adhesive binders will employ water as the associated liquid to avoid volatile organic content (VOC) emissions during the adhesive setting process”), wherein the cellulose fibers are at a consistency of between about 4% and 50% in the mixture (as discussed in [0037]: where in the mixture of the fiberballs and the binder, the binder consists of 5-50% of the plant growth medium, thus when the binder is 50%, then the cellulose fibers are at a consistency of 50% in the mixture).
Kosinski et al. fails to specifically show cellulose filaments; wherein the cellulose filaments have an average aspect ratio from about 200 to about 5000; an average width from about 30 nm to about 500 nm; and an average length of about 200 m to about 2 mm. However, Ben et al. teaches a method of growing plant seedlings comprising: a mixture of cellulose filaments and water ([0092]); wherein the cellulose filaments have an average aspect ratio from about 200 to about 5000 ([0071]: “CF has a very high aspect ratio, at least 200”); an average width from about 30 nm to about 500 nm ([0071]: “widths of 30 to 500 nm”); and an average length of about 200 µm to about 2 mm ([0071]: “lengths of at least 10 micrometers”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of growing plant seedlings of Kosinski et al. to include the filament as taught by Ben et al. for the advantage of providing a low-cost material and improve the wet-web strength of the mixture to enable it to be easily formed and shaped by the user (Ben et al. [0015]).
For claim 17, Kosinski et al. as modified by Ben et al. disclose the method of claim 16, further comprising treating the mixture to enhance the cation exchange capacity of the mixture, wherein the treating comprises enhancers, wherein the enhancers are selected from the group consisting of: charged groups substituted onto the cellulose filaments; peats; clays; nanoclays; and combinations thereof (Kosinski et al. as discussed in [0059]).
For claim 19, Kosinski et al. as modified by Ben et al. disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the cellulose filaments are never-dried cellulose filaments (Ben et al. as discussed in [0081] and [0092]).
For claim 20, Kosinski et al. as modified by Ben et al. disclose the method of claim 16, but fail to specifically show wherein the cellulose filaments are at a consistency of between about 28% and 35% in the mixture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of growing plant seedlings of Kosinski et al. as modified by Ben et al. to include cellulose filaments are at a consistency of between about 28% and 35% in the mixture for the advantage of providing resiliency to a molded plant medium, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 21, Kosinski et al. as modified by Ben et al. disclose the method of claim 16, the cellulose filaments are at a consistency of between about 14% and 27% in the mixture (Ben et al. as discussed in [0017]: less than 20 wt % of CF).
For claim 22, Kosinski et al. as modified by Ben et al. disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the cellulose filaments are unbleached (references are silent about bleaching of filaments).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The entangled and cross-linked fiberballs of Kosinski are different from CF, which are high-aspect- ratio filaments with specific dimensional characteristics that do not require carding or tumbling to form a network.
CF and the medium comprising CF are not the artificially entangled, rounded shapes as those of Kosinski and do not require cohesion promoters to work. Instead, CF function by physically entangling and forming a network without the need to be formed into shapes, rounded or otherwise.”
However, while Applicant argues the distinction between the entangled and cross-linked fireballs of Kosinski and the CF of applicant’s invention, it must be noted that Kosinski as modified by Ben discloses the invention as claimed. The fact that it discloses additional structure or steps (i.e. the CF formed into rounded shapes) not claimed is irrelevant.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Merely for the purpose of illustration, the Applicant submits that the Examiner is equating synthetic polymer fiber fill (Kosinski) to a wood-based hydrogel, i.e. mechanically interlaced, hard, coarse matter as opposed to a stable, self-interlacing aqueous composition. Indeed, the growth medium disclosed in the present application may, depending on the water proportion, present as a substance similar to play-doh or a wet cement (see, for example, [0089] and [0090]). Kosinski, meanwhile, discloses that the fiberballs may have an average dimension between 1 mm and 15 mm, i.e. having, at best, the coarseness of large sand.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It should also be noted that Kosinski et al. [0064] discusses the importance of maintaining adequate water and oxygen to the roots and thus suggests an aqueous solution. Further supported in [0043] which states “a plant growth medium comprises combining an amount of fiberballs with a polyvinylalcohol adhesive binder in water.”
In response to applicant's argument that the reference to Ben et al. is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Applicant argues “In Ben, CF are used to enhance the wet-web strength of agricultural sheets during papermaking. Ben adds CF to slurries of agricultural materials and processes them into sheets using high-speed papermaking machines. Ben aims to improve mechanical properties during sheet formation. However, a plant growth medium is not a formed sheet, let alone a sheet formed using high-speed papermaking machines. For example, the growth medium of Kosinski comprises fiberballs and a meltable cohesion promoter. As stated above, Kosinski's fiberballs have a size between 1 mm and 15 mm. Such coarseness is clearly unsuitable for any kind of papermaking, and a skilled person reading Kosinski, should they choose to, would not consider Ben as a relevant reference.” However, Kosinski et al. discusses in [0033] the polymer fireballs can be a combination of natural and synthetic organic polymer fibers and indicates “cellulose” as one of the possible polymers. Thus, the reference to Ben et al. simply teaches a cellulosic material used in making seed paper as a carrier for agriculture seeds ([0005]: “The seeds embedded in wood fibers…”). One having ordinary skill in the art would consider the reference to Ben et al. for teaching potential cellulose materials, herein CF, as a carrier for agriculture seeds, as claimed.
Applicant argues “The Examiner suggests that CF could replace or supplement the fiberballs in Kosinski. However, Kosinski's fiberballs rely on meltable cohesion promoters for bonding, while CF does not require such promoters. Indeed, any supplementation of the fiberballs of Kosinski with CF may be counter- productive. CF provides a growth medium with high water retention such that the medium and the seedlings may not require additional watering during seedling growth. Kosinski, instead, provides a growth medium that reduces water content to alleviate a stated problem of water accumulation on the top of the medium. Accordingly, substituting CF for the fiberballs of Kosinski would fundamentally alter the structure and functionality of Kosinski's medium, requiring significant redesign and experimentation. Indeed, it is unknown and undeterminable without undue experimentation whether CF may be a substitute for the fiberballs of Kosinski, or for the cohesion promoters thereof. As CF is not a thermal bonding cohesion promoter, a skilled person reading Kosinski would not turn to a non-thermally-bonding component for any advantage. CF are not meltable or otherwise formable into an adhesive following mixing with a different phase. In Kosinski, the cohesion promoters form a bridge between fiberballs either through addition to a mixture of fiberballs and thermal bonding, or through thermal bonding while being integrated into the fiberballs themselves. However, Ben does not contemplate any thermal bonding.”.
However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Indeed, the use of CF reduces energy usage in preparing growth media, and reduces the environmental impact of growth media by improving biodegradability. Kosinski may contemplate biodegradability in passing, however the bulk of the disclosure is directed to the use of synthetic, polymeric, heat-binding components. Kosinski's disclosure is, accordingly, energy-intensive.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 16, 17 and 19-22 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643