Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16, 19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0204491) in view of Profile Products LLC (WO 2021/226435, as cited by Applicant) and Stark et al. (WO 01/01780 A1).
For claim 16, Xu et al. discloses a method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate arranged to be used for growing plants in an indoor garden device, the dry preformed plant growth substrate having a solid substrate body (as shown in Fig. 1: 100) and seeds (Figs. 4A-4C: 135) arranged inside the solid substrate body, the dry preformed plant growth substrate having a shape formed by a mold ([0127]: “spreading the fibres over a ridged template or mould with depression incorporated”) and retained or maintained during use in a pot of the indoor garden device ([0088]: “In use, the growing mat of the present invention is fortified with nutrients during manufacture and dried. The dried mat is then supported by a rigid structure and suspended over water, such that the mat is just saturated but not floating in the water.”), the method comprising: producing a mixture by mixing a plant-derived component ([0120]: “natural fibres or products formed therefrom”) and solvent together ([0120]: “hydrated to form a slurry” - it is well known that hydrated means that water has been added); providing a mold having a three-dimensional shape for a preformed growth substrate ([0127]: “a ridged template or mould with depression incorporated”); directing the mixture into the mold for forming the preformed growth substrate ([0127]: “spreading the fibres over a ridged template or mould with depression incorporated“ and [0132]: “the slurry is left to dry across a molded screen”); stabilizing the mixture inside the mold into the preformed growth substrate ([0132]: “the slurry is left to dry across a molded screen, rather than a flat screen, so that depressions are formed during the drying process”); removing the preformed growth substrate from the mold after stabilizing ([0088]: “In use [emphasis added], the growing mat of the present invention is fortified with nutrients during manufacture and dried. The dried mat is then supported by a rigid structure and suspended over water, such that the mat is just saturated but not floating in the water.”); drying the preformed growth substrate to form a dry preformed growth substrate ([0126]: “left to dry naturally or using fans, heating or other forced drying techniques” and [0132]) before adding seeds into the dry preformed growth substrate (as shown in the steps of Fig. 8); and forming the dry preformed growth substrate into the dry preformed plant growth substrate by adding seeds into the dry preformed growth substrate ([0127] and [0128]: “Once depressions 130 are formed within the mat surface, seeds are placed 250 within some or all of the depressions.”).
Xu et al. is silent about drying the preformed growth substrate to below 20% moisture content. Profile Products LLC teaches a method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate arranged to be used for growing plants in an indoor garden device, wherein the method comprises steps of: drying a preformed growth substrate to below 20% moisture content ([0044]). 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 Xu et al. to include drying the growth substrate to below 20% moisture content as taught by Profile Products LLC for the advantage of bonding the fibers to create a solid growth substrate capable of handling and maintaining shape during germination of seeds and growth of plants.
Xu et al. discloses the method further comprises applying fungicides to the substrate ([0052] and [0120]), but fails to specifically show wherein the method further comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate in an amount from 1.0 liters/m2 to 2.0 liters/m2; or applying natamycin suspension to the dry preformed growth substrate in an amount from 1.0 liters/m2 to 2.0 liters/m2; or applying natamycin suspension to the dry preformed plant growth substrate in an amount from 1.0 liters/m2 to 2.0 liters/m2. However, Stark et al. teaches a method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate arranged to be used for growing plants in an indoor garden device, wherein the method further comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate in an amount from 1.0 liters/m2 to 2.0 liters/m2; or applying natamycin suspension to the dry preformed growth substrate in an amount from 1.0 liters/m2 to 2.0 liters/m2; or applying natamycin suspension to the dry preformed plant growth substrate in an amount from 1.0 liters/m2 to 2.0 liters/m2 (Page 8, lines 13-16: “9 tubs were treated five days prior to the first flush by applying an aqueous solution containing 10 ppm of natamycin, as a control 9 tubs were treated the same 15 way however without natamycin. The aqueous solution was applied at a rate of 1.84 liter per square meter and the mushroom beds were allowed to continue growing.”). 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 Xu et al. to include applying natamycin in an amount from 1.0 liters/m2 to 2.0 liters/m2 as taught by Stark et al. for the advantage of preventing fungal growth and enhancing plant yield.
For claim 19, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate according to claim 16, wherein the step of applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the dry preformed growth substrate after drying the preformed growth substrate to below 20% moisture content to form the dry preformed growth substrate before adding seeds into the dry preformed growth substrate; and before forming the dry preformed growth substrate into the dry preformed plant growth substrate by adding seeds into the dry preformed growth substrate (Profile Products LLC [0044]: after drying the preformed growth substrate to below 20% and applying seeds and [0045]: before forming the loose fibers into a dry preformed plant growth substrate by adding seeds).
For claim 23, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate according to claim 16, wherein forming the dry preformed growth substrate into the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: placing the seeds in the dry preformed growth substrate at a depth relative to a top surface of the dry preformed growth substrate (Xu et al. [0014] and Fig. 4b).
For claim 24, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate according to claim 16, wherein producing the mixture further comprises: mixing at least one functional additive together with the plant-derived component and solvent (Xu et al. [0088]: “In use, the growing mat of the present invention is fortified with nutrients during manufacture and dried.” and [0120]: “Functional additives or chemicals such as fungicides, fertilisers, nutrients or preservatives may be added at this point as required.”), or mixing an adhesive component together with the plant-derived component and solvent, or mixing an adhesive component together with the plant-derived component and solvent and further mixing at least one other functional additive together with the plant-derived component, the adhesive component and solvent.
Claims 17, 18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0204491) in view of Profile Products LLC (WO 2021/226435, as cited by Applicant) and Stark et al. (WO 01/01780 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kalwa (EP 3143870).
For claim 17, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate after directing the mixture into a mold for forming a preformed growth substrate, and before stabilizing the mixture inside the mold into the preformed growth substrate. Kalwa teaches the method comprising: applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “d) spraying at least one antimicrobial agent on the fiber cake, in particular the top of the fiber cake”) after directing the mixture into a mold for forming a preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “c2) defibration of the pre-fleece, mixing and application of the fiber mixture on a second conveyor belt to form a fiber cake”), and before stabilizing the mixture inside the mold into the preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “e) heating and compacting the fiber cake into a wood fiber mat”). 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 Xu et al., Profile Products LLC, and Stark et al. to include applying an antimicrobial agent as taught by Kalwa for the advantage of providing natamycin to the preformed growth substrate before drying the substrate.
For claim 18, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate after stabilizing the mixture inside the mold into the dry preformed growth substrate, and before removing the preformed growth substrate from the mold after stabilizing. Kalwa teaches the method comprising: applying an antimicrobial agent to the preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “d) spraying at least one antimicrobial agent on the fiber cake, in particular the top of the fiber cake”) or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying an antimicrobial agent to the preformed growth substrate after stabilizing the mixture inside the mold into the dry preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “c2) defibration of the pre-fleece, mixing and application of the fiber mixture on a second conveyor belt to form a fiber cake” defines the stabilization of the substrate), and before removing the preformed growth substrate from the mold after stabilizing (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “e) heating and compacting the fiber cake into a wood fiber mat”). 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 Xu et al., Profile Products LLC, and Stark et al. to include applying an antimicrobial agent as taught by Kalwa for the advantage of providing natamycin to the preformed growth substrate before drying the substrate.
For claim 21, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: spraying the natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate. Kalwa teaches a method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate arranged to be used for growing plants in an indoor garden device, wherein the method comprises: applying antimicrobial agent to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: spraying the antimicrobial agent to the preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “ d) spraying at least one antimicrobial agent on the fiber cake”) or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate. 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 Xu et al., Profile Products LLC, and Stark et al. to include spraying an antimicrobial agent as taught by Kalwa for the advantage of preventing the growth of mold and other microorganisms.
For claim 22, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein directing the mixture into mold comprises: directing the mixture into the mold to form a top surface of the preformed growth substrate, and applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the top surface of the preformed growth substrate; or applying natamycin suspension to the top surface of the dry preformed growth substrate; or applying natamycin suspension to the top surface of the dry preformed plant growth substrate. Kalwa teaches a method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate arranged to be used for growing plants in an indoor garden device, wherein the method comprises: directing the mixture into mold comprises: directing the mixture into the mold to form a top surface of the preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “c2) defibration of the pre-fleece, mixing and application of the fiber mixture on a second conveyor belt to form a fiber cake”), and the step of applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying an antimicrobial agent to the top surface of the preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated claim 13 “d) spraying at least one antimicrobial agent on the fiber cake, in particular the top of the fiber cake”); or applying natamycin suspension to the top surface of the dry preformed growth substrate; or applying natamycin suspension to the top surface of the dry preformed plant growth substrate. 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 Xu et al., Profile Products LLC, and Stark et al. to include applying an antimicrobial agent to the top surface as taught by Kalwa for the advantage of preventing the growth of mold and other microorganisms within the dry preformed plant growth substrate.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0204491) in view of Profile Products LLC (WO 2021/226435, as cited by Applicant) and Stark et al. (WO 01/01780 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of (JP 2015506924, herein JP ‘924).
For claim 20, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the dry preformed plant growth substrate after forming the dry preformed growth substrate into the dry preformed plant growth substrate by adding seeds into the dry preformed growth substrate. JP ‘924 teaches a method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate arranged to be used for growing plants in an indoor garden device, wherein the method comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: applying natamycin suspension to the dry preformed plant growth substrate after forming the dry preformed growth substrate into the dry preformed plant growth substrate by adding seeds into the dry preformed growth substrate (as discussed in the translated description “Also, in certain embodiments, two or more different polyene fungicides can contact the seed, the medium in which the seed is planted, or both. Preferably one of the polyene fungicides is natamycin.” and “The seeds can also be treated after sowing rather than directly on the seeds, for example by spraying a polyene fungicide on the soil or medium.”). 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 Xu et al., Profile Products LLC, and Stark et al. to include applying natamycin suspension after the step of forming the dry preformed growth substrate into the dry preformed plant growth substrate by adding seeds as taught by JP ‘924 for the advantage of preventing the growth of mold and other microorganisms within the dry preformed plant growth substrate to improve seed germination.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0204491) in view of Profile Products LLC (WO 2021/226435, as cited by Applicant) and Stark et al. (WO 01/01780 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mayhew et al. (WO 2019/011630).
For claim 25, Xu et al. as modified by Profile Products LLC and Stark et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the method further comprises: dispersing natamycin in solvent, ethanol, or propanol such that the natamycin suspension has a concentration of 2-10% by mass prior to applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate. Mayhew et al. teaches a method for producing a dry preformed plant growth substrate arranged to be used for growing plants in an indoor garden device, wherein the method comprises: applying natamycin suspension to a preformed growth substrate, the dry preformed growth substrate, or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate (Page 5, lines 36-38; Page 10, lines 5-6 and 36); and dispersing natamycin in solvent, ethanol, or propanol such that the natamycin suspension has a concentration of 2-10% by mass prior to applying natamycin suspension to the preformed growth substrate or the dry preformed growth substrate or to the dry preformed plant growth substrate (Page 5, lines 29-35). 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 Xu et al., Profile Products LLC, and Stark et al. to include dispersing natamycin in solvent, ethanol, or propanol as taught by Mayhew et al. for the advantage of creating a flowable suspension for applying to the dry preformed plant growth substrate in order to prevent fungal growth.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie (U.S. Patent No. 3,973,355) in view of Stark (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0150159).
For claim 27, McKenzie discloses a dry preformed plant growth substrate for growing plants in an indoor garden device, the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprising: a solid substrate body (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, line 28-32; and Col. 15, lines 15-20: 14) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an outer surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface around the solid substrate body (as shown in Fig. 2); seeds arranged inside the solid substrate body (Col. 3, lines 45-48); the solid substrate body comprising in a dry state, at least one plant-derived component (Col. 4, line 28-32) and an adhesive component (Col. 5, line 64- Col. 6, line 2) interconnected to form a stable porous structure in a form of the solid substrate body (Col. 1, lines 16-21); and a fungicide and/ or a soil sterilant provided on the top surface of the solid substrate body, on the outer surface of the solid substrate body, or in the stable porous structure of the solid substrate body (Col. 15, lines 11-15), wherein the dry preformed plant growth substrate has a shape formed by a mold (Fig. 2 and Col. 10, lines 9-12) and retained or maintained during use in a pot (as discussed in the abstract: “It may be formed in various shapes, such as pellets, plugs, cylinders, rods, blocks and the like. The gelled plant growth mix may be inserted in a plant matrix carrier or container”) of the indoor garden device.
McKenzie fails to show the solid substrate body further comprising natamycin. Stark teaches a dry preformed plant growth substrate for growing plants in an indoor garden device, the dry preformed plant growth substrate comprises: a substrate ([0015]); the substrate body further comprising natamycin ([0050]). 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 invention of McKenzie to include natamycin as taught by Stark for the advantage of preventing fungal growth.
For claim 28, McKenzie as modified by Stark discloses the dry preformed plant growth substrate according to claim 27, wherein the natamycin is provided on the top surface of the solid substrate body (Stark [0050]: “natamycin is applied to the upper surface of the substrate”).
For claim 29, McKenzie as modified by Stark discloses the dry preformed plant growth substrate according to claim 27, wherein the natamycin is provided on the outer surface of the solid substrate body (Stark [0050]: “natamycin is applied to the upper surface of the substrate”).
For claim 30, McKenzie as modified by discloses the dry preformed plant growth substrate according to claim 27, wherein the fungicide is provided in the stable porous structure of the solid substrate body (McKenzie Col. 15, lines 11-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 27-30, Applicant argues that the new claim limitations are not shown in the previously applied references. However, the examiner clearly pointed out the new features of the dry preformed plant growth substrate are shown in the reference to McKenzie, as detailed in the rejection of claims 27-30 above.
Conclusion
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 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
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights