DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Receipt and consideration of Applicant’s amended claim set and Applicant’s arguments/remarks submitted on April 22, 2026 are acknowledged.
All rejections/objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicant’s claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-18 are pending. Claims 9 and 12-14 are withdrawn. Claims 15-18 are newly added. Claims 5 and 8 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 15-18 are under consideration in this action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7 and 10-14) and the following species in the reply filed on December 10, 2025 is acknowledged:
One potassium salt of organic acid: a potassium formate salt (i.e., a potassium salt of formic acid);
One nitrogenous compound: N,N’-diformylurea.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly amended claim 1 introduces new matter as the claim recites the following limitation: “primary nutrients present in the composition, in a ratio relative to the total amount of all other components of the composition, in an amount of 1:5 or 1:10 or 1:15 or 1:20 or 1:30 or 1:40 or 1:50 w/w”. There is no support in the specification for this limitation. In particular, the limitation of the aforementioned ratios being a ratio of primary nutrients to the total amount of all other components of the composition was not described in the specification as filed, and person skilled in the art would not recognize in the Applicant’s disclosure of the invention as claimed.
The specification discloses “the plant growth composition … further comprises primary nutrients … in an amount of 1:5 or 1:10 or 1:15 or 1:20 or 1:30 or 1:40 or 1:50 w/w of the total composition” (P.G. Pub., para.0020, 0035), but does not describe the instantly claimed limitation where the ratios are the ratio of primary nutrients to the amount of the total amount of all other components in the composition. There is no guidance in the application as filed that the second number in the claimed ratios represent all other components in the composition (i.e., all components minus the primary nutrients). There also does not appear to be any examples exemplifying such ratios. From MPEP 2163.06: “Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicant has not directed the Examiner to the support in the specification for the amendments. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of filing of the instant application.
Newly amended claim 1 introduces new matter as the claim recites the following limitation: “secondary nutrients present in the composition, in a ratio relative to the total amount of all other components of the composition, in an amount of 1:0.05 or 1:5 or 1:10 or 1:15 or 1:25 w/w”. There is no support in the specification for this limitation. In particular, the limitation of the aforementioned ratios being a ratio of secondary nutrients to the total amount of all other components of the composition was not described in the specification as filed, and person skilled in the art would not recognize in the Applicant’s disclosure of the invention as claimed.
The specification discloses “the plant growth composition … further comprises secondary nutrients … in an amount of 1:0.05 or 1:5 or 1:10 or 1:15 or 1:25 w/w of the total composition” (P.G. Pub., para.0020, 0035), but does not describe the instantly claimed limitation where the ratios are the ratio of primary nutrients to the amount of the total amount of all other components in the composition. There is no guidance in the application as filed that the second number in the claimed ratios represent all other components in the composition (i.e., all components minus the secondary nutrients). There also does not appear to be any examples exemplifying such ratios. From MPEP 2163.06: “Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicant has not directed the Examiner to the support in the specification for the amendments. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of filing of the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 15-18 are subsequently rejected as they each incorporate the limitations of claim 1 discussed above and do not rectify the issues discussed above.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhry (US 2017/0166488 A1;of record), Dean (US 2003/0145640 A1; of record), and Marks (US 2009/0038355 A1; published Feb. 12, 2009).
Chaudhry discloses a multifunctional agricultural organic bio-complexed composition comprising essential and non-essential nutritional elements; useful as a fertilizer, nutrient, bio-stimulant, complexing agent, pH controller, pH indicator, hard water salts inactivator, surface tension reducer, spreader, penetrator, adjuvant, alkaline hard water ill effects mitigator, water conditioner, and drip system irrigation cleaner (abstract).
With regards to Claims 1, 2, and 17, Chaudhry discloses the multifunctional organic biocomplexed agricultural composition comprises nutrient sources such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in an amount of 2-45% (para.0056-0057, 0070).
The potassium source is present in an amount of 2 to 35% of the total composition. Among the suitable potassium sources is potassium formate (reading on potassium monoformate) (para.0074).
The nitrogen source is present in an amount of 5-30% of the total composition (para.0071).
With regards to the ratio between the nitrogenous compounds to the potassium salts of organic acids, Chaudhry discloses suitable amount of each components, which would overlap with the claimed weight ratio range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In the present case, given the art recognized range of nitrogen and potassium sources disclosed by Chaudhry for inclusion in a composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to start from the art recognized amounts and engage in routine experimentation and adjust the amount of each within the disclosed ranges based on art recognized factors such as the target plant, the state of the plant and its environment, and growth stage of the plant to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected growth enhancing results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
The composition contains Phosphorus (reading on primary nutrients) in an amount of 5 to 45% of the total composition. With regards to the ratio of primary nutrient to the total amount of all other components of the composition, the ratio as noted by Chaudhry would be 5:95 to 45:55 (1:19 to 1:1.22). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In the present case, given the art recognized and acceptable amount of phosphorus disclosed by Chaudhry for inclusion in the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to start from the art recognized amounts and engage in routine experimentation and adjust the amount phosphorus within the disclosed range based on art recognized factors such as the target plant, the state of the plant and its environment, and growth stage of the plant to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected growth enhancing results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With regards to Claim 6, the composition is mixed with N, P, K fertilizers (para.0043). The composition also includes non-essential elements such as pH indicators, humectants, surfactants, penetrating agents, defoamers, antifoaming agents, and thickeners/stabilizers (reading on agriculturally acceptable excipients) (par.0092). The composition also includes complexing agents, peptides, carbohydrate source, trace minerals, and vitamins (reading on supplements) (para.0058-0069).
With regards to Claims 7, 15, and 16, the composition is prepared in various forms such as solid powder, granule, or liquid (para.0102). The compositions may be applied by spraying (reading on being formulated in a spray form) (para.0085, 0099, 0104, 0113, 0115; Chaudhry claim 19).
The composition also includes non-essential elements such as pH indicators, humectants, surfactants, penetrating agents, defoamers, antifoaming agents, and thickeners/stabilizers (reading on agriculturally acceptable excipients) (par.0092).
With regards to Claim 18, surfactants may be present in an amount of 3-10% (para.0066, 0097).
Chaudhry does not appear to explicitly disclose (i) the inclusion of the elected species of nitrogenous compound (N,N’-diformylurea) or (ii) the inclusion of secondary nutrients in a ratio as recited in Claim 1. Dean and Marks are relied upon for this disclosure. Their teachings are set forth herein below.
Dean discloses agricultural uses of N,N’-diformylurea (reading on a diacyl urea) (abstract; para.0002, 0014). Dean discloses that N,N’-diformylurea has been found to produce enhanced growth in plants when used in a variety of ways. In particular, it produces enhanced growth when applied to seeds prior to planting, when applied to the soil surrounding the plant at or after planting, or when applied to the foliage of the plant (para.0009, 0020). It may mimic plant growth hormones and/or plant growth regulators based upon the similarity of its skeletal structure to a variety of biologically active compounds (para.0019).
The N,N’-diformylurea may be applied as an aqueous solution mixed with excipients such as surfactants (para.0021, 0023).
Marks discloses fertilizer compositions. Marks discloses plants need a range of nutrients for healthy growth. These include macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, carbon and water, secondary nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, and sulphur, as well as micronutrients, which include copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, boron, molybdenum, zinc, silicon, and nickel (para.0001-0002).
Marks discloses that one or more secondary nutrient (calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, or sulphur) or micronutrients (copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, boron, molybdenum, zinc, silicon, or nickel) may be present in the composition (para.0008). The concentration of all secondary nutrient or micronutrient present may be in the concentration range of 0.01% to 40% w/w (para.0010; Marks claim 5).
Marks discloses that compositions can be applied when stress conditions are occurring or when they are expected. Such conditions include intense light, herbicide, ozone, heat, chilling, freezing, drought, salinity, flooding, and heavy metal toxicity. The composition may reduce stress on plants growing in acidic soils, having a pH of less than 7, for example sandy acidic soils. Furthermore, the composition may provide an improvement in the performance of nitrogen fertilizers or fertilizers containing nitrogen where the nitrogen is derived from urea, amine, or ammonium. One of the major limiting factors in the rates of ammoniacal and ureic nitrogen that can be used is ammonia toxicity. By including a composition according to the invention into fertilizers at an appropriate rate, the plant’s ability to tackle ammonia toxicity is improved, which means that the rate at which these fertilizers can be applied may be increased (para.0079).
With regards to the nitrogenous compound (elected species: N,N’-diformylurea) of Claims 1 and 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Chaudhry and Dean and incorporate N,N’-diformylurea as the nitrogen source in Chaudhry’s agricultural composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the beneficial effects of Dean’s N,N’-diformylurea, such as enhanced plant growth, possibly mimicking plant growth hormones and/or plant growth regulators. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Chaudhry and Dean are directed to agricultural compositions and components for such compositions, and Dean’s N,N’-diformylurea is known to be formulated into agricultural compositions.
With regards to the inclusion of secondary nutrients and the ratio of the secondary nutrients relative to the total amount of all other components of the composition as recited in Claim 1, as discussed above, Marks discloses that plants need for healthy growth not only macronutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, but also secondary nutrients (e.g., calcium, magnesium) and micronutrients (e.g., copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, boron, zinc, silicon). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Chaudhry and Dean with the teachings of Marks and further include Marks’s disclosed secondary nutrients and micronutrients into the fertilizer composition of the combined teachings of Chaudhry and Dean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a composition with all of the necessary nutrients for healthy plant growth, thus including not only the macronutrients as disclosed in Chaudhry and Dean, but also the secondary nutrients and micronutrients disclosed in Marks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Marks’s secondary and micronutrients are known to be incorporated into agricultural compositions.
Furthermore, Marks discloses that such secondary and micronutrients are known to be incorporated into the composition in an amount ranging from 0.01% to 40% w/w, thus resulting in a ratio of secondary nutrient to the total amount of all other components of the composition of the combined teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and Marks of 0.01:99.99 to 40:60 (1:9999 to 1:5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In the present case, given the art recognized and acceptable amount of secondary and micronutrients disclosed by Marks for inclusion in the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to start from the art recognized amounts and engage in routine experimentation and adjust the amount necessary secondary and micronutrients within the disclosed range based on art recognized factors such as the target plant, the state of the plant and its environment, and growth stage of the plant to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected growth enhancing results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claims 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhry (US 2017/0166488 A1;of record), Dean (US 2003/0145640 A1; of record), and Marks (US 2009/0038355 A1; published Feb. 12, 2009) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 15-18, further in view of Freire et al. (Freire) (US 2007/0173409 A1; of record).
The combined teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and Marks, and the motivation for their combination as they apply to Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 15-18 are set forth above and incorporated herein. Additional relevant teachings of Marks is set forth herein below.
Marks discloses the composition may further include other agents that produce advantageous metabolic stimulating effects. For example, the inclusion of cytokinin in the composition may be used to increase the requirement for a particular secondary nutrient or micronutrient (para.0059).
The combined teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and Marks do not appear to explicitly disclose the amount of the growth hormones (e.g., cytokinin) as recited in Claims 4, 10, and 11. Freire is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Freire are set forth herein below.
Freire discloses formulations activating the absorption of mineral nutrients by plants. Consequently, it has also an effect on the metabolization of these mineral compounds by the plants. The main component of these formulations is 2-hydroxy-4-methylthiobutanoic (HMTB) acid and its derivatives (abstract; para.0001, 0009).
The formulations can be formulated in solid or liquid state (para.0017).
With regards to Claims 10 and 11, the metabolic activators can contain, in addition to the HMTB, one of more several compounds with plant growth regulating activity, including cytokinins, ethylene, brassinosteroids, salicylic acid, or jasmonic acid. This component can be included in the formulation at any percentage, though the optimum percentage ranges from 1 and 5% in weight (para.0013).
With regards to Claims 4, 10, and 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and Marks with the teachings of Freire and incorporate Freire’s metabolic activating formulation comprising plant growth regulating activators (e.g., cytokinin, ethylene, brassinosteroids, salicylic acid, or jasmonic acid) in the agricultural composition of the combined teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and Marks discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve plant growth through a variety of mechanisms of action (e.g., additional nutrients, plant growth regulators, improved absorption of mineral nutrients). Furthermore, as a general principle it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) MPEP 2144.06. In the present case, both the composition of the combined teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and Marks discussed above and the composition of Freire are directed to agricultural compositions to enhance plant growth, and being combined for the very same purpose.
With regards to the amounts recited in the instant Claims 4, 10, and 11, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In the present case, given the art recognized range of plant growth regulators disclosed by Freire for inclusion in a composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to start from the art recognized amounts and engage in routine experimentation and adjust the amount of plant growth regulator based on art recognized factors such as the target plant, the state of the plant and its environment, and growth stage of the plant to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected growth enhancing results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant notes that previous claim 5, which was not rejected by the Office as obvious over the cited art has been incorporated into claim.
In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, which involved changing the scope of the limitation recited in previous claim 5, new rejections citing a new combination of prior art references are set forth above to address the newly amended claim set.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over (i) claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/551,823 (Copending 823) and (ii) claims 1-16 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/551,835 (Copending 835), in view of Chaudhry (US 2017/0166488 A1; of record) and Dean (US 2003/0145640 A1; of record), and Marks (US 2009/0038355 A1; published Feb. 12, 2009).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the cited claims are directed to plant growth stimulant compositions comprising overlapping components, including potassium formate (potassium monoformate) and optionally growth hormones.
The primary differences between the instant claims and the cited claims of Copending 823/Copending 835 are: (i) Copending 823/Copending 835 does not appear to explicitly claim the ratio of nitrogenous compound to the one or more potassium salts of organic acids as recited in the instant claim 1, (ii) Copending 823/Copending 835 does not appear to explicitly claim the inclusion of the elected species of the nitrogenous compound, N,N’-diformylurea, and (iii) Copending 832/Copending 835 do not appear to explicitly claim the ratios for the primary nutrients and secondary nutrients. Chaudhry, Dean, and Marks are relied upon for these disclosures. Their teachings are set forth above and incorporated herein.
With regards to difference (i), both Copending 823 (e.g., claims 5-6) and Copending 835 (e.g., claim 4-5) claim the inclusion of nitrogen compounds in their compositions. Chaudhry discloses suitable amount of potassium (e.g., potassium formate) and nitrogen sources, which would overlap with the claimed weight ratio range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In the present case, given the art recognized range of nitrogen and potassium sources disclosed by Chaudhry for inclusion in a composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to start from the art recognized amounts and engage in routine experimentation and adjust of each within the disclosed ranges based on art recognized factors such as the target plant, the state of the plant and its environment, and growth stage of the plant to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected growth enhancing results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With regards to difference (ii), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Chaudhry and the claims of Copending 823/Copending 835 with the teachings of Dean and incorporate N,N’-diformylurea as the nitrogen source in the plant growth composition of the combined teachings of Chaudhry and Copending 823/Copending 835. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the beneficial effects of Dean’s N,N’-diformylurea, such as enhanced plant growth, possibly mimicking plant growth hormones and/or plant growth regulators. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so Copending 823/Copending 835, Chaudhry, and Dean are all directed to agricultural compositions and components for such compositions, and Dean’s N,N’-diformylurea is known to be formulated into agricultural compositions.
With regards to difference (iii), as discussed above, Marks discloses that plants need for healthy growth not only macronutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, but also secondary nutrients (e.g., calcium, magnesium) and micronutrients (e.g., copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, boron, zinc, silicon). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and claims of Copending 823/Copending 835 with Marks and further include Chaudhry’s primary nutrient (e.g. phosphorus) and Marks’s disclosed secondary nutrients and micronutrients into the fertilizer composition of the combined teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, and claims of Copending 823/Copending 835. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a composition with all of the necessary nutrients for healthy plant growth, including the macronutrients as disclosed in Chaudhry and Dean, and the secondary nutrients and micronutrients disclosed in Marks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so all such components are known to be incorporated into agricultural compositions.
With regards to the claimed ratio of micronutrients, Marks discloses that such secondary and micronutrients are known to be incorporated into the composition in an amount ranging from 0.01% to 40% w/w, thus resulting in a ratio of secondary nutrient to the total amount of all other components of the composition of the combined teachings of the combined teachings of Chaudhry, Dean, Marks and claims of Copending 823/Copending 835 of 0.01:99.99 to 40:60 (1:9999 to 1:5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In the present case, given the art recognized and acceptable amount of secondary and micronutrients disclosed by Marks for inclusion in the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to start from the art recognized amounts and engage in routine experimentation and adjust the amount necessary secondary and micronutrients within the disclosed range based on art recognized factors such as the target plant, the state of the plant and its environment, and growth stage of the plant to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected growth enhancing results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With regards to the claimed ratio of primary nutrient the ratio as noted by Chaudhry would be 5:95 to 45:55 (1:19 to 1:1.22). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. In the present case, given the art recognized and acceptable amount of phosphorus disclosed by Chaudhry for inclusion in the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to start from the art recognized amounts and engage in routine experimentation and adjust the amount phosphorus within the disclosed range based on art recognized factors such as the target plant, the state of the plant and its environment, and growth stage of the plant to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected growth enhancing results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant request the response to the provisional double patent rejections be held in abeyance until the pending claims are otherwise in condition for allowance.
As the pending claims are not in condition for allowance, the double patent rejections set forth above are maintained at this time.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 15-18 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights