*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 .
Applicant’s response dated June 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application claims benefit in provisional application 63/516,884 filed on 08/01/2023.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 8, 9, 13, and 15-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 19 are examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of a species directed to a non-woven mat, wherein the fibers are held together by a binder, having an additive applied to a surface of the fibers, wherein the additive is a surfactant, which encompasses claims 1-7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 19, in the reply filed on June 19, 2026, is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 8, 9, 13, and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Response to the restriction requirement of May 6, 2026 was timely filed.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 19 are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (US Patent 4,777,763 Date of Patent October 18, 1988) and Yelanich (US 2003/0089152 A1 Published May 15, 2003).
The claims encompass a soil amendment comprising a plurality of discrete fibers, wherein the fibers have an average diameter in the range of about 1 micron to about 5 micron; wherein the soil amendment has a density in the range of about 240.28 kg/m3 to about 720.83 kg/m3; and wherein the soil amendment is operable to increase the plant-available water level of the soil by the at least about 30% where the soil amendment replaces about 15% by volume of the soil, wherein the fibers form a non-woven mat, wherein the fibers are held together by a binder, and wherein the soil amendment comprises a surfactant applied to the surface of the fibers.
The teachings of Shannon are related to a plant growing medium in the form of a fabricated fibrous product having a density below 4.5 pcf, and preferably below 3.0 pcf, as a root supporting structure. The product comprises a pack of fibers, the fibers having a three dimensional orientation and at least some of the fibers being glass fibers, and binder binding the fibers to each other at substantially every place of fiber-to-fiber contact (Abstract). Plant growing media should have a density of less than 4.5, and preferably less than 3.0, pounds per cubic foot. However, FIGS. 1-10, relating mainly to test samples with higher densities, are included and discussed herein for better understanding of the superiority of the material (column 2 lines 30-37). "As-produced" conventionally formed glass wool with a high amount of uncured binder (about 24% LOI after curing) was merely cut into fourteen-inch square batts and press-molded to the four different thicknesses. The thicknesses, densities, and binder contents (loss on ignition) of the glass fiber boards were as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
282
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The boards were cut into six-inch square test specimens for determining compressive strength and into six-inch by twelve-inch test specimens for determining flexural strength (paragraph bridging columns 2-3). The boards 93, 94, and 95 are preferably black or dark
gray in color and are preferably made of glass wool fibers having a three-dimensional orientation of fibers and binder binding the fibers to each other at substantially every place of fiber-to-fiber contact. The fiber diameter should be about 16 to 75 HT (hundred thousandths of an inch), and preferably 30 to 40 HT. The binder may be thermosetting or thermoplastic and may be biodegradable. Binder content should be 5 to 20% LOI, preferably about 8 to 15% (column 7 lines 45-55).
Shannon does not teach surfactant coated on the fibers.
The teachings of Yelanich are related to a pre-mix composition for use in treating a plant
growth medium to promote improved wetting and re-wetting thereof comprising a mixture of coconut coir pith and a horticulturally acceptable surfactant (Abstract). In a further aspect, a process for treating a plant growth medium comprising is provided, the process comprising incorporating a pre-mixed blend of coconut coir pith and a horticulturally acceptable surfactant into the plant growth medium in an amount sufficient to promote improved wetting of the plant growth medium during use, before it becomes dried out, and to enable re-wetting of the plant
growth medium after it has dried out (paragraph 0020). Accordingly, a number of significant advantages are provided. For example, a solution is provided to resolve the significant problem that has been encountered concerning the decline in rewetting efficacy which has been found to occur in plant growth media treated with prior surfactants/wetting agents which have been stored before use for long periods of time (paragraph 0022). Concerning the use of the coconut coir pith component of the pre-mix compositions, it was found that coconut coir pith possesses certain
physical properties that enable it to provide an excellent "metering" effect when the pre-mix composition is incorporated in a plant growth medium resulting in the enhanced performance of the premix compositions when they are incorporated into a plant growth medium. That is,
coconut coir pith has an internal physical structure that readily absorbs liquids and it was found that this internal structure can be filled with appropriate surfactants/wetting agents so that the surfactants/wetting agents are retained within this internal structure of the coconut coir pith and are slowly released therefrom over time. In this manner, it was found that the combined or blended mixtures of coconut coir pith and surfactants act in a metering capacity whereby the surfactants are slowly released over time from the mixture into the surrounding plant growth medium after application (paragraph 0033).
The teachings of Shannon and Yelanich are related to plant growth media and it would have been obvious to have combined their teachings because they are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, 14, and 18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a plant growth medium comprising glass fibers having a diameter in the range of 16-75 HT (hundred thousandths of an inch), and a density in the range of 4.6-18.9 pcf, with a reasonable expectation of success because Shannon teaches a plant growth media comprised of glass fibers and teaches that fibers have a diameter in the range of 16-75 HT and a density in the range of 4.6-18.9. The claimed diameter range is obvious because it overlaps with 16-75 HT, which is equivalent to 4-19 microns. The claimed density is obvious because it overlaps with 4.6-18.9 pcf, which is equivalent to 74-303 kg/m3.
The “wherein” clause that describes product properties is met because the prior art product contains the same components as claimed and it would have been reasonable to expect the prior art product to have the same properties as claimed product when placed under identical conditions including being operable to increase the plant-available water level of the soil by the at least about 30% where the soil amendment replaces about 15% by volume of the soil.
It is apparent from Shannon’s teachings that the fibers are in the form of a non-woven mat. The fibers are described as being held together with a binder at every point of contact and as a batt, which is known as a nonwoven material.
It would have been obvious to have formed the plant growth media to comprise coconut coir pith and a horticulturally acceptable surfactant, with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from Yelanich that surfactants and wetting agents are beneficial in plant growth media and teaches adding a mixture of coconut coir pith and a horticulturally acceptable surfactant to plant growth media in order to improve its wetting and rewetting properties. It would have been reasonable to expect the surfactant to have been applied to the surface of the fibers because Yelanich teaches that coconut pith releases the surfactant over time into the mixture of the plant growth medium once the plant growth medium and the pre-mix comprising the surfactant and coconut pith are combined. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results supports obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed range is obvious because a range of about 2 microns to about 4 microns overlaps with a range of from about 4 microns to about 19 microns.
Regarding claim 6, a diameter range of about 3 microns is obvious because it is close enough in number to about 4 microns that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same properties. The density range of about 320.37 to about 640.74 kg/m3 is obvious because about 320 kg/m3 is close enough in number to 303 kg/m3 that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same properties. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed ranges are critical.
Regarding claim 7, a diameter range of about 3 microns is obvious because it is close enough in number to about 4 microns that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same properties. The density range of about 304.35 to about 656.76 kg/m3 is obvious because about 304.35 kg/m3 is close enough in number to 303 kg/m3 that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same properties. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed ranges are critical.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, it would have been obvious to have formed the mat having the thickness of ¼, ½, and ¾ inch because Shannon teaches these thicknesses as suitable. It would have been obvious to have formed the mat having a length of 12 inches and width of 6 inches because Shannon teaches these as suitable dimensions. The claimed width is obvious because 6 inches (15 cm) is encompassed by a range of 10 mm to 1 m. The claimed length is obvious because 12 inches (30 cm) is encompassed by a range of 10 mm to 1000 m. The claimed thickness range is obvious because it encompasses 6.35 mm, 12.7 mm, and 19 mm.
Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to have formed the plant growth medium with glass fibers, which are known as hydrophilic, and mineral wool fibers, which are known as hydrophobic fibers, with a reasonable expectation of success because Shannon teaches that fibers may be all glass fibers, partly glass fibers with mineral wool fibers, or synthetic or natural organic fibers optionally blended with glass fibers (column 8 lines 39-48).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon and Yelanich as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of Endo (CA 3036830 A1 Published March 22, 2018).
The claims further define the glass fibers.
The teachings of Shannon and Yelanich are relied upon as summarized above, however the references do not teach the chemical composition of glass wool, which was used to make the plant growth medium.
The teachings of Endo are related to glass wool (Abstract). Glass has the following composition: 62-64 wt. % of SiO2, 1.2-1.8 wt. % of Al2O3, and 14-16 wt. % Na2O, among other components (paragraph 0012). Paragraphs 0022-0038 provide additional ranges of components in the glass.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Shannon’s plant growth medium using glass wool because Shannon teaches using glass wool. It would have been obvious to have selected glass wool having a glass composition comprising 62-64 wt. % of SiO2, 1.2-1.8 wt. % of Al2O3, and 14-16 wt. % Na2O, among other components, with a reasonable expectation of success because Endo teaches that glass in glass wool comprises 62-64 wt. % of SiO2, 1.2-1.8 wt. % of Al2O3, and 14-16 wt. % Na2O, among other components. The claimed concentration range of SiO2 is obvious because it encompasses the prior art range. The claimed concentration range of Al2O3 is obvious because it encompasses the prior art range. The claimed concentration range of Na2O is obvious because it encompasses the prior art range. The ratio of Si to (Si+Al) range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports obviousness.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights