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 .
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 7 and 9 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “the screen” in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, the claim fails to define “a screen”. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “cylinder” in 2nd line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the cited limitation refers to the previously cited limitation of the same in claim 1 or to a new limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “the other materials” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear if the limitation refers back to what other materials. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rubin et al. (US 2007/0062113)
Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose a method for implementing a compressed growing medium with reduced seed germination comprising dehydrating the coir and/or other bulking agents to about 25% moisture content in an air circulating oven set to approximately 95.degree. C. (step 1000). The growing medium components, including the bulking agent, the water-retentive polymer, the non-ionic surfactant, and any other additional components, are then blended together with a roller drum (step 1010). (See paragraph [0053])
[AltContent: textbox (Spikes)]
PNG
media_image1.png
725
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Rotary cylindrical grinder or blades)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
651
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Then, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose the growing medium, whether pre-seeded or non-seeded, is then compressed at a volume-to-volume ratio ranging from about 7:1 to about 10:1 in order to form a base material for regrind (step 1020). The growing medium is typically compressed into bricks, slabs, wafers, pellets and any other shape. (See paragraph [0054])
Further, once the base compressed material is produced, the material may then be reground (step 930). FIG. 10 illustrates a grinding process according to one exemplary embodiment. As shown, the base material (1100) is fed into a hopper or other collection bin, where the base material is placed in contact with a grinding apparatus (1110). As shown, the grinding apparatus (1110) includes a plurality of rollers rotating in opposing directions, as indicated by the arrows (R). While the grinding apparatus (1110) of FIG. 10 is shown as having a plurality of rollers with grinding teeth, any number of rollers or grinders may be used to regrind the base material (1100) including, but in no way limited to, a shredder, a ball mill, a roller mill, and the like. (See paragraph [0055])
Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose two counter-rotating blades (1110) for shredding compressed coir into shredded coir.
Therefore, as to claim 1, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose a method of processing coir, comprising: using counter-rotating blades (1110) having spikes on an outside surface of the cylinder to shred compressed coir into dry, shredded coir. (see ¶ [0055] – [0057] and above annotated figure 10)
Rubin et al. (US ‘113) teach the bulking agent used in the growing medium is also dehydrated, having a moisture of content of about 15% or less, and more preferably of about 11% or less. (see ¶ [0022])
As to claim 2, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose hydrating the dry, shredded coir to a predetermined moisture level to produce moist coir. (see ¶ [0022])
As to claim 3, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) teach grinding up the coir after using the cylinder to produce the dry, shredded coir. (see ¶ [0024])
As to claim 4, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose hydrating the dry, shredded coir to a predetermined moisture level comprises hydrating the coir to a level of 10% to 18%. (see ¶ [0022])
As to claim 5, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) teach hydrating the dry, shredded coir to a predetermined level comprises hydrating the coir to a level of 10% to 15%. (see ¶ [0022])
As to claim 6, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) discloses screening the dry, shredded coir to only pass coir of a desired size for further processing. (see ¶ [0024], last sentence)
As to claim 7, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose cycling dry, shredded coir caught in the screen back to cylinder. (see ¶ [0024], last sentence)
As to claim 8, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) teach pelletizing the moist coir and mixing with other materials to create a coir soil additive. (see claim 11)
As to claim 9, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose the other materials comprise one of plant seed (¶ [0030]) and polymer (¶ [0020] - ¶ [0022])).
As to claim 10, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) teach the compressed coir comprises one of blocks (¶ [0026], [0028]) or wafers ((¶ [0015], ¶ [0034])).
As to claim 11, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose the spikes on the outside surface of the cylinder is evenly spaced. (see the above annotated figure 10)
As to claim 12, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) teach the cylinder is one of solid or has a center hole to accommodate a rod. (See the above annotated figure 10)
As to claim 13, Rubin et al. (US ‘113) disclose a method of processing coir, comprising: using a rotating cylinder with spikes on an outside surface of the cylinder to shred compressed coir into dry, shredded coir; and hydrating the dry, shredded coir to a predetermined moisture level to produce moist coir. (see ¶ [0022], ¶ [0055] – [0057] and above annotated figure 10)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,018,197. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter in the instant office action and the issued patent are a very similar, where they both claim “a method of processing coir, comprising using a rotating cylinder to shred compressed coir into dry, shredded coir, as claimed in claims 1 and 13 of the instant application and claim 1 of the issued patents. Similarly, the dependent claims 2-12 in the instant application and the dependent claims 2-8 in the issued patent are very similar and are not patentably distinct.
Claim 1-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,947,453. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter in the instant office action and the issued patent are a very similar, where they both claim “a method of processing coir, comprising using a rotating cylinder to shred compressed coir into dry, shredded coir, as claimed in claims 1 and 13 of the instant application and claim 1 of the issued patents. Similarly, the dependent claims 2-12 in the instant application and the dependent claims 2-5 in the issued patent are very similar and are not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
09/20/2025