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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawing sheets (7/9 and 8/9) received on 11 August 2026 have been reviewed and are acceptable.
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.
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.
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 16-19, 21 AND 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maisch (US 5,493,977 A) in view of Chiu et al. (EP 3036989 A1).
CLAIM 16 All of the method steps recited therein are inherent to use of the seed insertion device of Maisch, with the exceptions of: (a) a growth substrate having elastic properties; and (b) the step of closing the growth pocket by elastic force of the growth substrate.1 Chiu et al. ‘989 (“Chiu”) discloses an elastic growth substrate (100 and 200, collectively) useful for cultivating plants, wherein the growth substrate closes to encompass seeds. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the seed insertion device of Maisch with the elastic growth substrate of Chiu. The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide for the germination of seeds indoors, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 17 All of the method steps recited therein are taught by the combination of Maisch and Chiu.
CLAIM 18 All of the method steps recited therein are taught by the combination of Maisch and Chiu.
CLAIM 19 All of the method steps recited therein are taught by the combination of Maisch and Chiu. Additionally, Maisch teaches a pushing core (52) provided inside the insertion tube (66).
CLAIM 21 All of the method steps recited therein are taught by the combination of Maisch and Chiu.
CLAIM 23 All of the method steps recited therein are taught by the combination of Maisch and Chiu, with the exception of applying a pressing force. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art method with the additional step of applying a pressing force to the growth substrate, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the practice, both manually and mechanically, for covering seeds positioned in a pocket. The motivation for making the modification would have been to assist the elastic force.
CLAIM 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maisch (US 5,493,977 A) in view of Chiu et al. (EP 3,036,989 A1), as applied to CLAIM 17 above, and further in view of Nagy-Szakaly (US 4,843,982 A).
CLAIM 20 The combination of Maisch and Chiu fails to teach a spreading insert. Nagy-Szakaly ‘982 (“Nagy-Szakaly”) shows a seed insertion device comprising a spreading insert (46) that forms part of a feed channel (Figs. 15 and 16). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the feed head (Maisch, 18) of the prior art seed insertion device such that it would have comprised a spreading insert (Nagy-Szakaly, 46). The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for enlarging the diameter of the growth pocket, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 25 AND 29 are allowed.
CLAIMS 22 AND 24 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of Claims 16-19, 21 and 23 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to CLAIM 16, Applicant argues the combination of Maisch and Chiu fails to teach the step of closing the growth pocket by elastic force of the growth substrate. The examiner contends the prior art growth substrate (Chiu, 100, 200) includes elastic force sufficient to close the growth pocket. As shown in Figures 5 and 6 of Chiu, the growth substrate (100, 200) effectively wraps the seed (10) after placement and maintains the same posture prior to placement in a growth tray (300)(Fig. 1) without gaps. Additionally, Chiu identifies the growth substrate (100, 200) as containing a sponge, which has the elasticity to close a pocket, at least in part. The rejection of the claim is maintained.
With respect to CLAIM 23, the limitations recited therein are taken as admitted prior art because Applicant failed challenge or adequately traverse Official Notice taken by the examiner in the last Office Action. See MPEP 2144.03 (C).
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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
08 October 2026
1 See section 5 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13 May 2026 for a complete mapping of the claimed invention to the invention disclosed by Maisch.
Prosecution Insights