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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/9/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 [0061]: “disclosed is a method of supporting plant growth…By "support" or "supporting" is meant that the plant growth medium assists in providing plant material with a means for subsisting. By "plant material" is meant seeds, germinated seeds” and [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 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Claim 16 recites "implanting plant seeds in a mixture of cellulose filaments and an aqueous liquid." The ordinary meaning of the term "implanting" conveys placing something into a medium such that it is set within that medium and grows therein, rather than merely being placed on top of it, added before later reshaping, or associated with it indirectly. In the Office Action, the Examiner does not articulate how either Kosinski or Ben may recite such an activity.”
The examiner maintains that the reference to Kosinski teaches the step of “implanting plant seeds”. Kosinski discloses “plant material with a means for subsisting” which clarifies that the seed is not only “inserted” into holes or slits in the plant growth medium, but that the plant material is actively maintained and used to sustain and support the growth of the seed. The seed is set within the hole or slit of the plant material, thus implanted, as required by the claim.
The applicant argues “Kosinski does not disclose or suggest a mixture of CF and an aqueous liquid, but formed structural bodies having predetermined strength characteristics and held together by binders. for growth.”
The examiner maintains that the reference to Kosinski discloses 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”). It doesn’t matter that the mixture of Kosinski is a body, ball, sheet, mat, fiberball body, or other pre-formed structure”, as argued. The claim broadly uses the term “mixture”, which does not preclude the mixture from being a formed article.
Applicant argues “Kosinski is structurally opposite to Ben. The Examiner states that Kosinski discloses "a mixture of intermingled polymeric fiberballs and a cohesion promoter" and that seeds are inserted into holes or slits in the plant growth medium. However, Kosinski does not disclose or suggest a loose or non- ordered filament-and-water mixture serving directly as the planting medium. Rather, the Examiner's own summary confirms that Kosinski concerns a structurally coherent medium comprising fiberballs and a cohesion promoter.”
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a loose or non- ordered filament-and-water mixture”) 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).
Applicant argues “The Examiner accordingly combines the references and bridges the gaps between them, and between a combination thereof and the claimed subject matter by means of generalized conclusory statements. The Examiner identifies a wet composition for further processing on one side and a plant growth body on the other, and treats such dissimilar structures as though they collectively satisfy the definition of "mixture."
The examiner wants to clarify that the obviousness rejection was not applied to teach the “mixture”. It is maintained that the reference to Kosinski alone, teaches the mixture of cellulose fibers and an aqueous liquid, as claimed.
Applicant argues, “The claimed invention is not merely about ingredients. It is about the form those ingredients take when functioning as the growth medium. Applicant's invention is directed to a non-ordered cellulose- filament mixture that can become entangled and thereby provide a structure within which roots can grow. That concept is materially different from both of the cited references.”
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a non-ordered cellulose- filament mixture”) 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).
Applicant argues “As stated by the Examiner, Ben is used to show cellulose filaments in a wet system with improved "wet-web strength" so the material can be "formed and shaped by the user". Wet-web strength is a papermaking or sheet-forming property. It describes how a wet mat, web, or sheet behaves during formation and handling. It does not describe a root growth matrix formed by entangled cellulose filaments in aqueous liquid. The fact that cellulose filaments may contribute to wet strength in a sheet does not mean that the same filaments can receive implanted seeds and support root growth through filament entanglement.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, it is not necessary for the cellulose filaments of the reference to Ben et al. to explicitly receive implanted seeds. The reference to Ben et al. was used in to show the cellulose filaments with the claimed properties: 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”).
Applicant argues “The Examiner's rationale for combining the references focuses on "providing a low-cost material" and improving "wet-web strength" so that the material can be "formed and shaped by the user". Assuming, arguendo, that such a rationale is supported by Ben, which the Applicant does not concede, the rationale fails to lead a skilled person to the claimed subject matter. Sheet formability has no bearing on the usability of a mixture as a seed implantation medium.”
The reference to Kosinski teaches the mixture of the plant growth medium with cellulose fibers in the form of a continuous strip, also referred to as a sheet (as shown in Figs. 1A-2D). The reference to Ben et al. teaches sheet material formed from cellulose filaments having the claimed properties: 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”). The reference to Ben et al. is related to the formation of agricultural products containing cellulose filaments (as discussed in the abstract), and not required to show implantation of seeds. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize applying cellulose filaments significantly improves the wet-web strength of the agricultural sheet material (as discussed in the abstract).
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 16, 17 and 19-22 are maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights