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 .
Claims 1, 5-11, and 20-21 are pending in this application.
Withdrawn grounds of rejection
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims filed on 11/4/2025, which deleted “system” from the claims.
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims filed on 11/4/2025, which deleted “system” and “mixture being adjacent to the seed” from the claims.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
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 10 and 11 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.
Dependent claims 10 and 11 refer back to independent claim 1. Claim 1 has been amended in the response filed on 11/4/2025 to delete “a seed” as a component of the now-claimed “combination.” Claims 10 and 11 recite “the mixture having been applied” per one seed. This is a confusing claim feature that seems to introduce a method step to a composition, article, or kit invention. The following analogy illustrates the Examiner’s position:
[AltContent: rect]
Hypothetical claim 2 confusingly introduces and completes the method step of applying the mixture to a patient. Similarly, claims 10 and 11 here confusingly introduce and complete the method step of applying the mixture to a seed.
The claims are therefore deemed confusing and indefinite.
35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed previously, claims 10 and 11 introduce a method steps to an invention that is not directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
35 U.S.C. 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goswami (IN 708DEL2009A).
Goswami discloses formulations T-1 to T-4, which contain the following ingredients (page 13):
powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata;
talc fine powder and pyrite soil dust;
carboxymethyl cellulose; and
2x108 CFU/g of Trichoderma virens and Beauveria bassiana.
In Example 2, mungbean seeds treated with formulations T1, T2, T3, or T4 were sown in pots with soil (see part b, which bridges pages 14-15; and Table 3 on page 15). Seeds treated with T. virens and B. bassiana exhibited greater germination and lower mortality from disease (Table 3). In Example 3, part d, roots of brinjal seedlings were dipped with formulations T1, T2, T3, or T4 and planted in the field. Treated brinjal exhibited greater yield; for example, brinjal treated with T1 exhibited 266% increase in yield1 (pages 18-19).
The claims are anticipated because Goswami clearly discloses the claimed combination. Goswami’s powdered oil seed cake is within the scope of “crop residue.” Claim 9 is included here because Goswami exemplifies the mixture of fungi, which is the same whether it was generated by sequential or concomitant application of the two strains. Claims 10 and 11 are included here because, as discussed previously in this Office action, these claims recite a method step of applying the mixture to a seed, which does not change what is being claimed, the combination of claim 1.
The rejected claims recite a synergistic fungi combination, wherein the fungi “increase a breakdown of the crop residue to release nutrients.” Claim 21 is directed to a method of releasing nutrients in soil by placing a mixture of fungi in soil containing crop residue and breaking down crop residue by the mixture of fungi to release nutrients. Goswami exemplifies a specific mixture of the same Trichoderma virens and the same Beuveria bassiana in combination with soil + crop residue, i.e., powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata. Therefore, the same result would have been necessarily obtained because the same fungi mixture is applied in the soil or in the seed that are sown in the soil, wherein the soil contains said crop residue.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/4/2025 have been given due consideration but they were deemed unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Applicant is “utilizing a fungi mixture in a manner that is not taught by nor was discovered by Goswami, which has no connection to biopesticides, and which produces unexpected results unforeseen by Goswami.” However, Applicant is reminded that this ground of rejection is under section 102. Evidence of unexpected result is not material to anticipation analysis. Further, the fact remains that Goswami explicitly discloses in several examples the specific combination claimed by Applicant. Because the same exact combination was used on seed and in soil with a residue that falls with the scope of “crop residue,” the same result would have been necessarily obtained.
35 U.S.C. 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 1, 5-11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami (IN 708DEL2009A) in view of Johnson (US 7,429,477), Sood et al., Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 4% WP label, Proposed Registration Document – Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03, and Cadle-Davidson (US 2022/0142175).
Goswami discloses formulations T-1 to T-4, which contain the following ingredients (page 13):
powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata;
talc fine powder and pyrite soil dust;
carboxymethyl cellulose; and
2x108 CFU/g of Trichoderma virens and Beauveria bassiana.
In Example 2, mungbean seeds treated with formulations T1, T2, T3, or T4 were sown in pots with soil (see part b, which bridges pages 14-15; and Table 3 on page 15). Seeds treated with T. virens and B. bassiana exhibited greater germination and lower mortality from disease (Table 3). In Example 3, part d, roots of brinjal seedlings were dipped with formulations T1, T2, T3, or T4 and planted in the field. Treated brinjal exhibited greater yield; for example, brinjal treated with T1 exhibited 266% increase in yield2 (pages 18-19).
Goswami also discloses a co-formulation of Trichoderma virens and Beauveria bassiana as a broad spectrum biopesticide. See page 6, lines 6-8; claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9. Formulations of T. virens and B. bassiana as seed dressing are exemplified (Example 2 in view of Example 1). See in particular page 15, “Each pot was sown with 10 treated seeds” (emphasis added). Spore load of the seed dressing formulations is 2x108 CFU/g (see Example 1). Seeds treated with T. virens and B. bassiana exhibited greater germination and lower mortality from disease (Table 3). Both T. virens and B. bassiana are formulated at 2x105 to 2x109 CFU/g, with 2 x 108 CFU/g being preferred and exemplified. See page 6, last full paragraph; page 7, 6th full paragraph (“each of spore load 2x108 CFU/g”); page 13, Example 1, Formulations 1-5; pages 14-19, Examples 2-4, including Tables 2-8; claim 4 (“each of spore load 2x108 CFU/g”). Example 3, part c used 10-15 g of a 2x108 CFU/g formulation and dissolved it in 1 liter of water (page 17), which calculates to 2x106 CFU/ml to 3x106 CFU/ml.
Johnson (US 7,429,477) is cited to further establish that T. virens having the ATCC deposit accession numbers 20906 (G41) and 58678 (GL-3) are known, commercially available T. virens strains for use in agriculture. See the paragraph bridging columns 1-2; column 8, lines 55-56, 58-59; column 15, lines 3-8. Application to seed is disclosed (column 13, lines 24-30, 38-45; column 16, lines 5-13). T. virens GL-3 applied alone to corn seeds provided improved protection against Fusarium (Table 0, seed treatment TJ 0300). In Table 1, corn seeds treated with T. virens GL-3 applied alone at a rate of 1x109 CFU/acre and grown with Fusarium-infested wheat obtained significantly increased biomass compared to controls (columns 17-18). In Table 2, corn seeds treated with T. virens GL-3 applied alone at a rate of 106 CFU/seed increased yield compared to the control (columns 18-19). In the Working Example disclosed in columns 20-21, T. virens GL-3 soil-applied in the seed furrow at a rate that calculates to 106 CFU/corn seed increased yield in a field with natural population of pathogen levels (see Table 5)3.
Sood et al. disclose Trichoderma species as a low cost, effective and ecofriendly biocontrol agent (abstract; page 14, conclusion) with numerous benefits, including increase in yield and nutrient absorption, plant resistance to pathogens, and inhibition of plant pathogens (abstract; see article sections 2 to 4, including all subsections, on pages 2-13). Trichoderma can emit acids that assist in the discharge of phosphorus ions, which can be inaccessible to plants in most soils, and Trichoderma inoculation leads to an increase of copper, sodium and zinc uptake as well as other micronutrients (page 4, section 2.3; Table 1 at page 12). “Treatment with different species of Trichoderma guarantees high yield production in the case of crops like mustard, wheat, corn, tuberose, sugarcane, tomato, okra, etc.” (emphasis added) (page 4, section 2.4). Sood’s Table 1 shows that T. virens is known to produce IAA (indole-3-acetic acid), which is involved in growth and development of plants and their root system, and various enzymes that break down or degrade xylans and chitin (page 11). Trichoderma species are also known to produce soil modifiers that reduce pH of soil, facilitate the solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients, and solubilize iron (page 12), as well as produce many substances that have antimicrobial activities (see entire Table 1). Trichoderma species are also known to produce cellulases, which break down plant cell walls (page 13, section 5.2).
Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 4% WP label discloses a wettable mycoinsecticide product containing 4% B. bassiana strain GHA, wherein the product contains a minimum of 2x109 viable spores/g of product for control of various insects in numerous crop plants (pages 1-8)4. Application rate includes 0.5 to 1.5 pounds of the product per acre, which calculates to approximately 4.54x1011 to 1.36x1012 viable spores/acre (pages 9-10). For corn, the application rate is 1/8 to1/4 pound per acre, which calculates to approximately 1.14x1011 to 2.27x1011 viable spores/acre (page 10). For unit conversion, at a corn seeding rate of 25,000 seeds/acre (Johnson), approximately 4.56 x 106 to 9.12 x 106 viable spores/seed is suggested.
Proposed Registration Document – Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03 discloses the ANT-03 strain of B. bassiana as an insecticidal agent for use in crop plants, with commercial product lines Bioceres containing 1x1010 spores/g (page 7). 2 to 4 g of the product per liter of water is applied at a spray volume of 500-100 liters/ha (page 9, section 1.3). It is noted that 2g/liter of the product applied at 500 liters/ha is approximately 4.05x1012 spores/acre. For unit conversion, at a corn seeding rate of 25,000 seeds/acre (Johnson), approximately 1.62 x 108 spores/seed is suggested.
The ANT-03 strain “has value and does not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment” (page 26, section 8.0).
Cadle-Davidson (US 2022/0142175) discloses treating corn seeds with 104 CFU/seed of Beauveria bassiana strain ARSEF 2579 (also referred to as BF503) as the only biopesticide or B. bassiana GHA by itself (BotaniGard®) as the only biopesticide; combined use of B. bassiana strains with two different species of Trichoderma fungi is also disclosed. See paragraphs 37-39, 41-52; claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10. Combination of B. bassiana BF503 + SabrEx® (which contains Trichoderma afroharzianum + T. atroviride) as seed treatment, each fungus at 104 CFU/seed, exhibited synergy in increasing dry root weight (paragraph 44). Seed treatment is disclosed as a more cost-effective treatment than soil treatment (paragraph 47). B. bassiana BF503 is disclosed as an entomopathogenic fungus that parasitizes and kills insects (paragraphs 37-38), which also has the ability to live in mutualistic association with the corn plant and grow out with the roots as they develop; this means B. bassiana BF503 will be in the exact location attacked by corn rootworm after seed treatment (paragraph 39). Corn seeds treated with B. bassiana BF503 resulted in a reduction of the number of beetles that emerged from the treated plants (paragraph 42). Corn seeds treated with 104 CFU of B. bassiana BF503/seed and planted in a field with low corn rootworm pressure resulted in a “significant increase in yield, even in the absence of corn rootworm pressure” (paragraph 43; see also paragraph 48). Figures 8A and 8B show that seeds treated with 104 CFU of BotaniGard® (i.e. B. bassiana GHA) per seed killed corn rootworm larvae and showed fungal infection of the larvae (paragraph 47). Broader application rate of 103 to 106 CFU/seed of each fungus is disclosed (paragraph 52). In-furrow method of application is also disclosed, which means the “fungi will be deposited next to or proximate to the seeds and the area directly around the seed” (emphases added) (paragraph 52).
Instant claim 1 recites a synergistic fungi combination comprising a mixture of fungi and “soil including crop residue, the mixture of fungi being positioned in the soil to increase a breakdown of the crop residue to release nutrients.”
It is the Examiner’s position that increasing a breakdown of the crop residue to release nutrients is recitation of property necessarily possessed by Goswami’s combination. Goswami exemplifies a specific mixture of the same Trichoderma virens and the same Beuveria bassiana in combination with soil + crop residue, i.e., powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata. Therefore, the same result would have been necessarily obtained because the same fungi combination is applied to seeds or roots that are sown or planted in the soil.
It is well established that “[m]ere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Baxter, the court held that even when the prior art did not expressly disclose hemolysis-suppression feature or property of a blood bag plasticizer, such unrecognized feature or property is insufficient for rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness over a prior art blood bag that utilized the same plasticizer. See also Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious”).
Additionally, Trichoderma species are known as low cost, effective and ecofriendly biocontrol agent that also increase yield and nutrient absorption, plant resistant to pathogens, inhibition of plant pathogens, increase the availability of phosphorus ions, increase the uptake of copper, sodium and zinc as well as other micronutrients, increase solubilization of phosphates, micronutrients, and iron, and produce enzymes that break down or degrade xylans (Sood et al.). In fact, Sood et al. disclose, “Treatment with different species of Trichoderma guarantees high yield production” (page 4, section 2.4). Also, T. virens GL-3 is known to provide protection against Fusarium disease (Johnson, US 7,429,477).
Furthermore, Beauveria bassiana strains are known mycoinsecticides, wherein strain BF503 at 104 CFU/seed has been shown to grow out with the root after seed treatment, increase yield even in the absence of corn rootworm pressure, and synergistically combine with Trichoderma strains as seed treatment to increase root weight, and B. bassiana GHA at 104 CFU/seed has been shown to infect and kill corn rootworm larvae (Cadle-Davidson). Additionally, the CFU/seed features of claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious from the known application rates of prior art T. virens and B. bassiana strains, as discussed above.
For these reasons, the ordinary skilled artisan would have further expected Goswami’s seed treatment of T. virens + B. bassiana to provide numerous advantages, including increased nutrient cycling and increased breakdown of crop residue (which contain xylans and cellulose) and release of nutrients resulting in improved crop yield.
Goswami does not explicitly recite the term, “synergistic fungi combination.” The instant specification describes the synergistic fungal combination as one that “enhances one or more aspects of plant growth and decomposition” (page 1). It is the Examiner’s position that Goswami’s combination contains the same T. virens and B. bassiana as the claims of the instant application in amounts that are readable on the claims, and Goswami’s combination has been shown to decrease mortality and increase yield. Therefore, any “synergistic” property possessed by Applicant’s combination would also have been possessed by Goswami’s combination. See also Cadle-Davidson’s teaching of synergism for seed treatment of 104 CFU B. bassiana BF503/seed + 104 CFU different species of Trichoderma/seed, which is further suggestive of synergistic fungi mixture of B. bassiana + Trichoderma species.
Claims 5-8 recite specific strain combinations, T. virens G41 + B. bassiana ANT-03, T. virens G41 + B. bassiana GHA, T. virens GL-3 + B. bassiana ANT-03, and T. virens GL-3 + B. bassiana GHA. All of the strains are commercially available and known to be used in agriculture for numerous benefits, as discussed above. Therefore, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious to utilize the claimed strains in order to obtain Goswami’s combination of T. virens and B. bassiana.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the mixture is generated by sequential application of the T. virens strain, and the B. bassiana strain.” It is the Examiner’s position that the combinations disclosed by Goswami are readable on instant claim 9 because the end result of sequential application is seed or soil that contains both T. virens strain and B. bassiana strain with “crop residue” and soil.
Claim 21 is directed to a method of releasing nutrients in soil by placing a mixture of fungi in soil containing crop residue and breaking down crop residue by the mixture of fungi to release nutrients. The method step of claim 21 is readable on Goswami’s method step of applying the same Trichoderma virens and the same Beuveria bassiana in combination with soil + crop residue, i.e., powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata, to seed or roots and planting the seed or roots in soil. Thus, claim 21 requires the same method step of placing a mixture of T. virens and the same B. bassiana in soil containing crop residue. Because the same method steps are explicitly disclosed by Goswami, the same result would have been necessarily obtained. Additionally, the same result would have been obvious from teachings of secondary references. Trichoderma species are known to increase yield, increase nutrient absorption, resist pathogens, emit acids to discharge phosphorus ions which can be inaccessible in most soils, facilitate solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients, increase copper, sodium and zinc uptake, produce cellulases which break down plant cell walls, produce enzymes that break down xylans, and guarantee high yield production (Sood et al.). Seeds treated with T. virens and B. bassiana exhibited greater germination and lower mortality from disease (Goswami), so increased yield would have been expected. Seed treated with T. virens including the G41 strain, either directly as a seed treatment or indirectly in soil-applied seed furrow treatment, increased yield (Johnson).
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 claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant’s specification results relevant to the currently claimed synergistic fungi combination have been given due consideration, but the results there are not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness as set forth herein. Specification tables 3-9 show increased yield, but Goswami teaches increased yield from the combination of T. virens and B. bassiana, so the ordinary skilled artisan would not have found such results unexpected. The specification compares the result of the fungi mixture to that of the individual fungus, but this is not a comparison against the closest prior art because Goswami already teaches that T. virens and B. bassiana are used together. Numerous plant growth benefits and decomposition would have been expected from the combined use of T. virens and B. bassiana for the reasons set forth above, and any increased growth and breakdown obtained by the combined use would have been the necessary results of following the teachings of Goswami to use the two fungal species together.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/4/2025 have been given due consideration but they were found unpersuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that “the combinations proposed by the Examiner are not germane to the problem being solved by the applicant and which is addressed in the claim language.” The Examiner cannot agree. Obviousness does not require that the prior art must identify and solve the same exact problem as Applicant. Here, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious because the same exact combination comprising a mixture of fungi + soil + crop residue is taught by Goswami to be used on seeds and roots, which are planted in soil, to increase germination, lower mortality, and increase yield; and seed treated with T. virens including the G41 strain, either directly as a seed treatment or indirectly in soil-applied seed furrow treatment, increased yield (Johnson). Also, Applicant fails to take into account what the prior art taken together teaches regarding breaking down to soil and yield. Trichoderma species are known to increase yield, increase nutrient absorption, resist pathogens, emit acids to discharge phosphorus ions which can be inaccessible in most soils, facilitate solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients, increase copper, sodium and zinc uptake, produce cellulases which break down plant cell walls, produce enzymes that break down xylans, and guarantee high yield production (Sood et al.). Thus, increased breakdown of Goswami’s crop residue (powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata) to release nutrients would have been obvious; and moreover, such increased breakdown would have been necessarily obtained because the same exact combination comprising a mixture of the same exact fungi, soil, and crop residue within the scope of the instant claims are exemplified by Goswami.
For these reasons, all claims must be rejected again.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami (IN 708DEL2009A) in view of Johnson (US 7,429,477), Sood et al., Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 4% WP label, and Cadle-Davidson (US 2022/0142175).
This ground of rejection does not apply against claims 5 and 7 and relies on 5 prior art references.
All prior art references cited in this ground of rejection have been discussed above, and the discussion of their teachings and suggestions therein are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, Goswami teaches that seeds and soil treated with T. virens and B. bassiana with soil and crop residue exhibited greater germination, greater yield, and lower mortality from disease. Johnson teaches that seed treated with T. virens including the G41 strain, either directly as a seed treatment or indirectly in soil-applied seed furrow treatment, increased yield. Sood et al. teach that Trichoderma species are known to increase yield, increase nutrient absorption, resist pathogens, emit acids to discharge phosphorus ions which can be inaccessible in most soils, facilitate solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients, increase copper, sodium and zinc uptake, produce cellulases which break down plant cell walls, produce enzymes that break down xylans, and guarantee high yield production. Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 4% WP label discloses a wettable mycoinsecticide product that can be applied to corn at approximately 4.56 to 9.12 x 106 viable spores/seed. Cadle-Davidson teaches synergism for seed treatment of 104 CFU B. bassiana BF503/seed + 104 CFU different species of Trichoderma/seed, which is suggestive of synergistic fungi mixture of B. bassiana + Trichoderma species. Cadle-Davidson teaches seed treatment as well as in-furrow method of application.
The obviousness rationale set forth in the previous ground of rejection on pages 6-17 of this Office action are applicable to this ground of rejection and incorporated herein by reference. The ordinary skilled artisan would have expected Goswami’s combination to provide numerous advantages, including increased nutrient cycling, including increase in breakdown of crop residue (which contain xylans and cellulose) and release of nutrients resulting in improved crop yield.
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 claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant’s arguments relative hereto, filed on 11/4/2025, incorporates by reference the arguments of the previous ground of rejection. The Examiner maintains that obviousness does not require that the prior art must identify and solve the same exact problem as Applicant. Here, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious because the same exact combination comprising a mixture of fungi + soil + crop residue is taught by Goswami to be used on seeds and roots, which are planted in soil, to increase germination, lower mortality, and increase yield; and seed treated with T. virens including the G41 strain, either directly as a seed treatment or indirectly in soil-applied seed furrow treatment, increased yield (Johnson). Also, Applicant fails to take into account what the prior art taken together teaches regarding breaking down to soil and yield. Trichoderma species are known to increase yield, increase nutrient absorption, resist pathogens, emit acids to discharge phosphorus ions which can be inaccessible in most soils, facilitate solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients, increase copper, sodium and zinc uptake, produce cellulases which break down plant cell walls, produce enzymes that break down xylans, and guarantee high yield production (Sood et al.). Thus, increased breakdown of Goswami’s crop residue (powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata) to release nutrients would have been obvious; and moreover, such increased breakdown would have been necessarily obtained because the same exact combination comprising a mixture of the same exact fungi, soil, and crop residue within the scope of the instant claims are exemplified by Goswami.
For these reasons, this ground of rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami (IN 708DEL2009A) in view of Johnson (US 7,429,477), Sood et al., Proposed Registration Document – Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03, and Cadle-Davidson (US 2022/0142175).
This ground of rejection relies on 5 prior art references and does not apply against claims 6 and 8.
All prior art references cited in this ground of rejection have been discussed above, and the discussion of their teachings and suggestions therein are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, Goswami teaches that seeds and soil treated with T. virens and B. bassiana with soil and crop residue exhibited greater germination, greater yield, and lower mortality from disease. Johnson teaches that seed treated with T. virens including the G41 strain, either directly as a seed treatment or indirectly in soil-applied seed furrow treatment, increased yield. Sood et al. teach that Trichoderma species are known to increase yield, increase nutrient absorption, resist pathogens, emit acids to discharge phosphorus ions which can be inaccessible in most soils, facilitate solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients, increase copper, sodium and zinc uptake, produce cellulases which break down plant cell walls, produce enzymes that break down xylans, and guarantee high yield production. Proposed Registration Document – Beauveria bassiana strain ANT-03 discloses the ANT-03 strain of B. bassiana as an insecticidal agent for use in crop plants, which can be applied to corn seed at approximately 1.62 x 108 spores/corn seed. Cadle-Davidson teaches synergism for seed treatment of 104 CFU B. bassiana BF503/seed + 104 CFU different species of Trichoderma/seed, which is suggestive of synergistic fungi mixture of B. bassiana + Trichoderma species. Cadle-Davidson teaches seed treatment as well as in-furrow method of application.
The obviousness rationale set forth in the previous ground of rejection on pages 6-17 of this Office action are applicable to this ground of rejection and incorporated herein by reference. The ordinary skilled artisan would have expected Goswami’s combination to provide numerous advantages, including increased nutrient cycling, including increase in breakdown of crop residue (which contain xylans and cellulose) and release of nutrients resulting in improved crop yield.
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 claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant’s arguments relative hereto, filed on 11/4/2025, incorporates by reference the arguments of the previous ground of rejection. The Examiner maintains that obviousness does not require that the prior art must identify and solve the same exact problem as Applicant. Here, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious because the same exact combination comprising a mixture of fungi + soil + crop residue is taught by Goswami to be used on seeds and roots, which are planted in soil, to increase germination, lower mortality, and increase yield; and seed treated with T. virens including the G41 strain, either directly as a seed treatment or indirectly in soil-applied seed furrow treatment, increased yield (Johnson). Also, Applicant fails to take into account what the prior art taken together teaches regarding breaking down to soil and yield. Trichoderma species are known to increase yield, increase nutrient absorption, resist pathogens, emit acids to discharge phosphorus ions which can be inaccessible in most soils, facilitate solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients, increase copper, sodium and zinc uptake, produce cellulases which break down plant cell walls, produce enzymes that break down xylans, and guarantee high yield production (Sood et al.). Thus, increased breakdown of Goswami’s crop residue (powdered oil seed cake of Pongamia pinnata) to release nutrients would have been obvious; and moreover, such increased breakdown would have been necessarily obtained because the same exact combination comprising a mixture of the same exact fungi, soil, and crop residue within the scope of the instant claims are exemplified by Goswami.
For these reasons, this ground of rejection is maintained.
For the foregoing reasons, all claims are rejected again. No claim can be allowed at this time.
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.
/JOHN PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
1 67250 ÷ 25310 x 100 ≈ 266.
2 67250 ÷ 25310 x 100 ≈ 266.
3 2.5 g of a composition containing 1x108 CFU per gram is mixed with 1 gallon of water, and 10 gallons of this mixture is applied in the seed furrow at 10 gallons per acre, wherein the seeding rate is 25,000 seeds per acre (column 20).
4 This label document has two pages at the beginning that are not part of the product label. Page numbers used here refer to the actual label page numbers which are at the bottom right corner of the label.