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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 and 27 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 16 June 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of the following species is also acknowledged: a combination of N-fixing and P-solubilizing bacteria as the microbial consortia, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as the fungi, and Funneliformis mosseae as the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Claims 3-4, 19 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 June 2026.
Claims 1-2 and 5-18 are under examination.
Priority and Domestic Benefit
Applicant’s claim for priority to the filing date of PCT/US2023/060180 filed 05 January 2024, and for the domestic benefit of US Provisional Application No: 63/297,549 is acknowledged
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The effective filing date is 07 January 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 August 2024, 27 August 2024, 06 February 2025,11 April 2025, 24 June 2025, and 15 May 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 and 13-14 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the hydrogel bead is comprised of an amount effective to contact the microbial consortia and the fungi”. The limitation reads as the hydrogel bead component within the inoculant composition comprises an effective amount of some material that contacts the microbial consortia and the fungi, but the claim does not specifically recite what that material is. It is unclear if the material the hydrogel bead comprises in “an amount effective to contact the microbial consortia and the fungi” is the hydrogel bead itself, or some other material that the hydrogel bead comprises that is not recited. A similar issue is in the limitation “the microbial consortia is comprised of an amount effective to release one or more nutrient to a plant”. The limitation reads as the microbial consortia component within the inoculant composition comprises an effective amount of some material that releases one or more nutrient to a plant, but the claim does not specifically recite what that material is. It is unclear if the material the microbial consortia comprises in “an amount effective to release one or more nutrient to a plant” is the microbial consortia itself, or some other material that the microbial consortia comprises that is not recited. Another similar issue occurs with the limitation “the fungi is comprised of an amount effective to associate with a plant root and increase plant access to the one or more nutrient”. The limitation reads as the fungi component within the inoculant composition comprises an effective amount of some material that associates with a plant root and increases the plant’s access to one or more nutrient, but the claim does not specifically recite what that material is. It is unclear if the material the fungi comprises in “an amount effective to associate with a plant root and increase plant access to the one or more nutrient” is the fungi itself, or some other material that the fungi component comprises that is not recited.
Claim 13 has similar issues as with claim 11 above, differing only in that the microbial consortia and fungi components of the inoculant composition are recited to comprise “an amount effective to degrade one or more chemical compounds”. It is still unclear if the material the microbial consortia and fungi components comprise in “an amount effective to degrade one or more chemical compounds” is the microbial consortia or fungi itself, respectively, or some other material that the microbial consortia or fungi components comprise that is not recited. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, so is indefinite for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of a product of nature without significantly more.
The claims are drawn to the statutory category of a composition of matter (Step 1: Yes).
Claim 1 recites an inoculant composition comprising a hydrogel bead, a microbial consortia, and a fungi, wherein the microbial consortia and fungi are in contact with the hydrogel bead, and claims 11 and 13 recite that the inoculant composition comprises effective amounts of the hydrogel, microbial consortia, and fungi.
Microbial consortia comprising bacteria and fungi exist naturally, such as in the rhizosphere of plants, as evidenced by pg. 6 right col. para. 2 of Costa et al. (Microbial Extracellular Polymeric Substances: Ecological Function and Impact on Soil Aggregation, Front. Microbiol. 9:1636, doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01636). Bacteria and fungi in the soil naturally produce extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that are highly hydrated and entrap nutrients, enhancing aggregation of soil particles and benefiting plants by maintaining moisture and nutrients, and they also gel and thicken, as evidenced by the Abstract and Figs. 1-2 of Costa. The art recognized definition of a hydrogel is a network of water-absorbing polymers that can retain large amounts of water while maintaining structure. The EPS as described in Costa falls within the definition of a hydrogel due to polymers comprising polysaccharides, proteins, and DNA (Costa Abstract). Therefore, hydrogels are not only naturally occurring, but also naturally occur in proximity to soil microbial consortia and fungi.
Although the claim recites the hydrogel is a bead, this feature does not provide any markedly different characteristics as compared to the hydrogel in nature. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a bead is any substantially round three dimensional object. The structure and composition of the natural hydrogel is identical to the claimed hydrogel bead. There is no evidence that the shape of the natural hydrogel causes any markedly different changes in its effectiveness or properties. Claim 8 recites that the hydrogel bead has a diameter of 0.2 mm to 10 cm, but there is no evidence that the recited diameters produce any markedly different characteristics as compared to the natural hydrogel.
Claim 2 recites that the hydrogel bead is an alginate bead. Alginate is a naturally occurring polymeric substance found in brown algae, as evidenced by abstract of Abka-khajouei et al. (Structures, Properties and Applications of Alginates. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 364. https://doi.org/10.3390/md20060364).
Claim 5 recites that the fungi in the inoculant comprises the elected species arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and claim 6 recites that the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is the elected species Funneliformis spp. Funneliformis spp. arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are present in nature, as evidenced by the abstract of Alrajhi et al. (Diversity, Distribution, and applications of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the Arabian Peninsula, Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 31 (2024) 103911, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2023.103911).
Claim 7 recites that the microbial consortia comprises the elected species of N-fixing bacteria and P-solubilizing bacteria. N-fixing bacteria and P-solubilizing bacteria are naturally occurring microorganisms found in soil, as evidenced by Costa (pg. 3 right col. para. 1 and pg. 7 para. 1).
Claim 9 recites that the microbial consortia and fungi are encapsulated in the hydrogel bead, claim 10 recites that the hydrogel bead further comprises water, one or more nutrient, or combination thereof, and claim 12 recites that the nutrient comprises phosphorous, potassium, nitrogen, iron, magnesium, copper, vitamins, or a combination thereof. Soil microbial consortia comprising bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, nutrients, phosphorous, nitrogen, copper, many soluble and insoluble metal species, and water are naturally found in contact and encapsulated in natural EPS hydrogel, as evidenced by Costa (Fig. 2, pg. 4 sec. Nutrient Trap and pg. 7 para. 1).
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the microbial consortia is comprised of an amount effective to degrade one or more chemical compounds; and the fungi is comprised of an amount effective to degrade one or more chemical compounds.”, which is interpreted as being intended uses and functions of the claimed composition, but do not add any new structural limitations to the composition.
Claim 14 further limits the chemical compounds that claim 13’s limitation recites to be degraded, and claim 14 does not add any new structural limitations to the composition.
Claim 15 recites that the inoculant composition is administered to a plant, a part of a plant, a medium in contact with a plant, or a medium in need thereof.
Claim 16 recites the hydrogel is either biodegradable or not. Bacterial EPS is naturally occurring and naturally degrade, but can also resist degradation, as evidenced by Costa (pg. 9 left col. last para.).
Claim 17 recites the inoculant composition further comprises an excipient. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “excipient” includes any substance that is formulated alongside the inoculant, including natural compounds such as water.
Claim 18 recites that the inoculant further comprises one or more seed. Seeds are naturally occurring products of plant reproduction.
Therefore the instant invention recites a judicial exception of a product of nature (Step 2A Prong One: Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are drawn to a naturally occurring composition of matter. The claims do not recite any applications or method steps that limit the product of nature to any particular use or therapeutic application. Although claim 15 recites that the inoculant composition is administered to a plant, a part of a plant, a medium in contact with a plant, or a medium in need thereof, this limitation is not a limiting method step, but rather an intended use of the claimed composition; thus, claim 15 does not amount to significantly more than the recited product of nature.
Therefore, the instant invention is directed to the judicial exception of a product of nature and does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception of a product of nature, and so the instant invention is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101 (Step 2A Prong Two: No and Step 2B: No).
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 1-2, 7-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suman et al. (Development of Hydrogel based Bio-Inoculant Formulations and their Impact on Plant Biometric Parameters of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. (2016) 5(3): 890-901) in view of Panichikkal et al. (Evaluation of plant probiotic performance of Pseudomonas sp. encapsulated in alginate supplemented with salicylic acid and zinc oxide nanoparticles, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 166 (2021) 138–143).
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-9, and 16, Suman teaches a bioinoculant composition comprising: a hydrogel, a microbial consortium, and a fungi (Suman title, pg. 894 Table 1, pg. 895 table 2, and Fig.2).
Suman does not teach that the hydrogel is in the form of a bead made of alginate, that the microbial consortia and fungi are encapsulated in said hydrogel bead, that said hydrogel bead has a diameter of about 0.2mm to about 10cm, or that the hydrogel is biodegradable or not.
Panichikkal teaches the encapsulation of a plant growth promoting rhizobacteria within an alginate hydrogel bead that is biodegradable (Panichikkal abstract, pg. 139 sec. 2.4, and pg. 138 right col. para.), and that the hydrogel bead is approximately 1mm in diameter (Panichikkal pg. 139, right col., para. 1). Panichikkal teaches that sodium alginate is a preferred hydrogel material because it forms beads instantaneously in the presence of polyvalent cations, and that alginate is a biodegradable material that is nontoxic to the environment and has the capability of gradually releasing entrapped rhizobacteria into the soil (Panichikkal pg. 138 right para.). Panichikkal also teaches that encapsulation of live plant growth promoting rhizobacteria within suitable polymer scaffolds increases the rhizobacteria’s performance in the agricultural field (Panichikkal pg. 138 para. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Suman’s bioinoculant composition by replacing the hydrogel with Panichikkal’s 1mm biodegradable alginate hydrogel bead that encapsulates the beneficial microorganisms in order to make Suman’s bioinoculant composition more environmentally friendly, more effective at gradually releasing the entrapped microbial consortia and mycorrhizal fungi into the soil, and to align with the industry norm of using sodium alginate as a hydrogel for encapsulation of rhizobacteria and fungi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Panichikkal teaches that sodium alginate is a preferred hydrogel material in the industry, and that alginate is a biodegradable material that is nontoxic to the environment and has the capability of gradually releasing entrapped rhizobacteria into the soil (Panichikkal pg. 138 right para.).
Regarding claim 7, Suman teaches the microbial consortia comprises the bacteria Azotobacter chrococcum, which is a type of nitrogen fixing bacteria, and Pseudomonas fluorescence which is a type of phosphate solubilizing bacteria (Suman pg. 892 para. 1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Suman teaches the hydrogel holds a large amount of water (Suman Abstract). Suman also teaches that the hydrogel composition comprises nitrogen fixing bacteria Azotobacter chrococcum and phosphorous solubilizing bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescence that make the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous biologically available within the hydrogel and the surrounding soil (Suman pg. 892 paras. 1-2).
Regarding claims 13-14, claim 13 recites the limitations “the microbial consortia is comprised of an amount effective to degrade one or more chemical compounds; and the fungi is comprised of an amount effective to degrade one or more chemical compounds.”, which is interpreted as being intended uses and functions of the claimed composition, but do not add any new structural limitations to the composition; thus, if a composition in the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed composition, claim 13 will be considered to be anticipated. Claim 14 further limits the chemical compounds that claim 13’s limitation recites to be degraded, and claim 14 does not add any new structural limitations to the composition; thus, claim 14 will be considered to be anticipated for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Suman teaches the inoculant composition is administered to a wheat plant (Suman Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “excipient” includes any substance that is formulated alongside the bioinoculant, including compounds such as water, which Suman teaches is present in the bioinoculant (Suman Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Suman teaches that wheat seeds were treated with the hydrogel and microbial-mycorrhizal consortium composition prior to planting; thus, Suman’s bioinoculant composition comprised wheat seeds (Suman pg. 893 para. 1 and 894 left col. para.).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suman in view of Panichikkal as applied to claims 1-2, 7-11, and 13-18 above, and further in view of Mikiciuk et al. (Mycorrhizal frequency, physiological parameters, and yield of strawberry plants inoculated with endomycorrhizal fungi and rhizosphere bacteria, Mycorrhiza (2019) 29:489–501).
Suman and Panichikkal do not teach the inoculant composition comprises the elected arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Funneliformis mosseae.
Mikiciuk teaches a soil inoculant bioproduct comprising arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Funneliformis mosseae that increased the incorporation of beneficial bacteria and fungi in the roots of strawberry plants, the total chlorophyll concentrations in the leaves, the rate of transpiration and CO2 concentration, CO2 assimilation rates, and the yields and weights of the final strawberry fruit (Mikiciuk Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Suman and Panichikkal’s inoculant composition to further comprise the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Funneliformis mosseae in order to further enhance the beneficial effect of Suman and Panichikkal's inoculant composition by further improving the quality of the soil and plant, and increasing the yields of the final crop. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Mikiciuk teaches that arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Funneliformis mosseae is an effect bioinoculant that increases the incorporation of beneficial bacteria and fungi in the roots of crop plants, the total chlorophyll concentrations in the leaves, the rate of transpiration and CO2 concentration, CO2 assimilation rates, and the yields and weights of the final crop (Mikiciuk Abstract). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectations that incorporating Funneliformis mosseae into Suman and Panichikkal’s inoculant composition would provide Funneliformis mosseae’s benefits to the final, combined inoculant composition.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suman in view of Panichikkal as applied to claims 1-2, 7-11, and 13-18 above, and further in view of Skrzypczak et al. (Hydrogel Alginate Seed Coating as an Innovative Method for Delivering Nutrients at the Early Stages of Plant Growth. Polymers. 2021; 13(23):4233. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13234233).
Suman and Panichikkal do not teach the alginate hydrogel beads comprise one or more nutrients phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, iron, magnesium, copper, a vitamin, or combination thereof.
Skrzypczak teaches an alginate hydrogel seed coatings containing the nutrients phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, and copper (Skrzypczak pg. 12 Table 7). Skrzypczak teaches that the alginate hydrogel allows for controlled release of elements so that high levels of individual nutrients in the coating will not be released too fast into the soil and groundwater, such that the inclusion of these nutrients has the advantage of stimulating plant growth activity (Skrzypczak pg. 11 para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Suman and Panichikkal’s hydrogel bead inoculum to further comprise Skrzypczak’s hydrogel encapsulated nutrients phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, and copper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Skrzypczak teaches that alginate hydrogel encapsulated nutrients allows for controlled release of the elements so that high levels of individual nutrients are not released too fast into the soil and groundwater, and the inclusion of these nutrients has the advantage of stimulating plant growth activity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the plant growth stimulating benefit Skrzypczak’s nutrients would add to Suman and Panichikkal’s hydrogel bead inoculum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M DURYEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached on (571)-272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/Alexander M Duryee/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights