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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024 and 06/11/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are not labeled with Figure numbers. Even if there is only one figure, it should be labeled ‘Figure 1’, and referenced to as such. Further, the figure is objected to because the lines are not sufficiently dense, dark and well-defined so as to permit satisfactory reproduction; the lines appear very ‘grayed out’, and this issue will be exacerbated with reproduction (37 C.F.R. 1.84(l)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The applicant claims a water absorption capacity of 2g to 4g, however water absorption capacity is a known concept/value that is unitless in dimension, often represented as a percent or as g/g. Per the specification, this capacity is in fact 2g to 4g per gram of shaped medium (Pg 8), and for examination purposes, it will be treated as such, the improper unit representation being treated as a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
The term “evenly dispersed” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “evenly dispersed” is not defined by the claim, and although the specification provides a special definition for the term (Pg 3 - “evenly dispersed" indicates that the anti-insect agent weight percentages in the samples derived from different parts of the anti-insect culture medium are similar or the same), the special definition is not definite, in that it contains a relative term itself (“similar”) .the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Interpretation
On page 9, lines 4-8, the applicant says that “the shaped medium has a porosity of 15% to 25%. In other words, based on a total volume of the shaped medium, the air content in the shaped medium is in a volume of 15 volume percent to 25 volume percent.” The examiner is considering this as a special definition, and that they are using ‘porosity’ to refer to ‘air content’.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim Han Suk (WO 2017044968 A2) hereinafter referred to as Han Suk (for distinction from another ‘Kim’ used later on), as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Han Suk discloses an anti-insect culture medium (biochar with pesticide additive in pores – see ¶00135-00136 and 00139, comprising:
a shaped medium (biochar) having a plurality of pores interconnected to each other (¶00136); and
an anti-insect agent (pesticide as additive per ¶00139) evenly dispersed and fixed in the pores (¶00136); wherein
the shaped medium comprises at least one culture medium solid (the biochar is the culture medium solid);
the anti-insect agent comprises an anti-insect ingredient (pesticide per ¶00136); and
the anti-insect agent is a sustained-release formulation (capable of being released over time per ¶00120 – “time release effect”).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim (WO 2006061164 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ramsey (US 20080034653), hereinafter referred to as Ramsey, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses an anti-insect culture medium (new mat formed per abstract)
a shaped medium (“bed soil”/”raw materials” component of the mat, has a shape given it has mass – see also claims 11-13, given shape by mat former) having a plurality of pores interconnected to each other (Pores are considered: the volumes within the shaped medium where the anti-insect agent resides – see page 21, insecticide ‘impregnated’ in mat - for a component that holds volume to be impregnated in another component, it must be held in void spaces/pores within the material, whether macro or micro --; and the pores inherently present in the nanostructure of the shaped medium material itself– see Pg 15, lines 1-15 for materials included and supportive language on page 17, line 3, which says the mat ‘swells’ when water is poured on it, proving non-zero absorptive capability, which is related to porosity); and
an anti-insect agent (insecticide formulation) evenly dispersed and fixed in the pores (see claims 11-13 which discuss mixing the insecticide with the raw materials/bed soil, and Pg 21 which says the mat is impregnated with the insecticide; dispersed/fixed in the pores in that the pores include the volumes that the insecticide resides, as described above; evenly, as best understood, given the insecticide and raw materials forming the shaped medium are mixed in the production of the mat, which is analogous to the production of the present invention, mixing seemingly providing the even dispersal); wherein
the shaped medium comprises at least one culture medium solid (culture medium solids are the individual materials that make up the bed soil/raw materials – see for example Pg 15, lines 1-15 which mention peat, chaff, and paper fiber as possibilities);
Alternatively, should the applicant not be convinced that the anti-insect agent is fixed in the pores of the shaped medium, or understand the claim mapping as above:
Ramsey (US 2008/0034653) discloses a cultivation medium with a pore network (pore network 15, Fig 2) having surfaces to which pesticides are adsorbed for later release (¶0028).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mixed the raw materials and insecticide of Kim, such that the insecticide was dispersed and fixed within the porous network of the formed shaped medium, as in Ramsey, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to adequately support and contain the pesticides for later release over time – when watered, the porous medium would pass water through its pore network, thereby contacting the pesticides. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein based on a total weight of the anti-insect agent, the anti-insect ingredient is in an amount of 0.1 weight percent to 15 weight percent (see test example 9 on Pg 20: 43.34g (44g * .985) active ingredient in 1215g of total weight ingredients (44+50+137+5+5+544+430) = 3.56 wt% active ingredient in insecticide 5).
Regarding claim 3:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the anti-insect agent is a plurality of anti-insect particles (see test example 5, Pg 19 – “particles”), and based on a total weight of the anti-insect culture medium, the shaped medium is in an amount of 85 weight percent to 99.99 weight percent, and the anti-insect particles are in an amount of 0.01 weight percent to 15 weight percent (see test example 14 on Pg 21: 20g insecticide to 1200g of total weight in mixture = 1.67 wt% insecticide particles).
Regarding claim 5:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein based on a total weight of 10 g of the anti-insect culture medium, the anti-insect ingredient is in an amount of 1 x10-5 g to 2 g (i.e. .0001% - 20 wt%) (see claim 10: .01-10%w/w animal pesticidal active ingredient).
Regarding claim 6:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the culture medium solid has a material comprising any of coconut fibers, peat soils, sphagnum, barks, stones, charcoals, tree-ferns, foams, styrofoam fragments, Osmunda fibers, calcined clays and rock wools or a combination thereof (Pg 15, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 7:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein the culture medium solid has a material comprising any of coconut fibers, peat soils, sphagnum, barks, stones, charcoals, tree-ferns, foams, styrofoam fragments, Osmunda fibers, calcined clays and rock wools or a combination thereof (Pg 15, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 8:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 3 above and further discloses wherein the culture medium solid has a material comprising any of coconut fibers, peat soils, sphagnum, barks, stones, charcoals, tree-ferns, foams, styrofoam fragments, Osmunda fibers, calcined clays and rock wools or a combination thereof (Pg 15, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 9:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 4 above and further discloses wherein the culture medium solid has a material comprising any of coconut fibers, peat soils, sphagnum, barks, stones, charcoals, tree-ferns, foams, styrofoam fragments, Osmunda fibers, calcined clays and rock wools or a combination thereof (Pg 15, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 10:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the culture medium solid has a material comprising any of coconut fibers, peat soils, sphagnum, barks, stones, charcoals, tree-ferns, foams, styrofoam fragments, Osmunda fibers, calcined clays and rock wools or a combination thereof (Pg 15, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 11:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the anti-insect ingredient comprises any of pyriproxyfen, permethrin, milbemectin, malathion, methomyl and imidacloprid or a combination thereof (Pg 8, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 12:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, wherein, in the mapped embodiment with the claimed wt% for claim 2, the active ingredient is thiamethoxam (see test example 9 on Pg 20).
Kim fails to disclose, in the mapped embodiment, that the anti-insect ingredient comprises any of pyriproxyfen, permethrin, milbemectin, malathion, methomyl and imidacloprid or a combination thereof.
However, Kim further discloses the use of permethrin and thiamethoxam as an active ingredient interchangeably (Pg 8, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used Permethrin as the active ingredient in the insecticide formulation, rather than thiamethoxam, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. The equivalence of Permethrin and Thiamethoxam in their ability to act as a pesticide is known in the art, as evidenced by Kim, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, Permethrin may be more effective than Thiamethoxam for eliminating certain species of pests in certain environments, and it is within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Regarding claim 13:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 3 above, wherein, in the mapped embodiment with the claimed wt% for claim 3, the active ingredient is thiamethoxam (see test examples 14 and 5 on pages 21 and 19).
Kim fails to disclose, in the mapped embodiment, that the anti-insect ingredient comprises any of pyriproxyfen, permethrin, milbemectin, malathion, methomyl and imidacloprid or a combination thereof.
However, Kim further discloses the use of permethrin and thiamethoxam as an active ingredient interchangeably (Pg 8, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used Permethrin as the active ingredient in the insecticide formulation, rather than thiamethoxam, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. The equivalence of Permethrin and Thiamethoxam in their ability to act as a pesticide is known in the art, as evidenced by Kim, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, Permethrin may be more effective than Thiamethoxam for eliminating certain species of pests in certain environments, and it is within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Regarding claim 15:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the anti-insect ingredient comprises any of pyriproxyfen, permethrin, milbemectin, malathion, methomyl and imidacloprid or a combination thereof (Pg 8, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 19:
Kim discloses the anti-insect culture medium as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses an anti-insect method, comprising planting a plant in the anti-insect culture medium as claimed in claim 1 (Pg 17, line 8).
Claims 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (or alternatively, Kim and Ramsey), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Applicant admitted prior art, (Pg 12: anti-insect agent called Jin-LihNungLing, purchased from Lih Nung Chemical Co., Ltd., Taiwan, active ingredients: pyriproxyfen, specification: 11 % ( w/v) water-based emulsion and sustained release formulation), hereinafter referred to as AAPA Lih, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 4:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further contemplates that pesticidal active ingredients may be formulated in known manner to emulsifiable concentrates, sprayable or dilutable solutions or suspensions, dilute emulsions, etc. (Pg 13, lines 10-25); and “wherein the amount of animal pesticidal active ingredient in the mat for seeds impregnated with animal pesticide and/or fungicide according to the invention depends on different parameters such as, the type of animal pesticide, the presence of another animal pesticide and/or fungicide in the formulation, the type and the amount of release controllable material. The formulation will usually contain from 0.01 to 10% by weight of animal pesticidal active ingredient, preferably from 0.02 to 5% by weight of animal pesticidal active ingredient which takes part of the composition of the mat for seeds according to the invention.” (Pg 12, lines 4-10).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anti-insect agent is a water-based emulsion, and based on a total weight of 10 g of the anti-insect culture medium, the water-based emulsion is in a volume of 0.01 ml to 2 ml.
AAPA Lih discloses an anti-insect agent that is a water-based emulsion and which has the active ingredient pyripoxyfen at 11% (w/v) (Pg 12, lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the insecticide manufactured by Lih Nung Chemical Co. as the insect agent of Kim, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a suitable pest treatment, ideal for the type of crop that is intended to be grown in the mat, the environment of growth, etc. It has been held that it is within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The examiner remarks, that, given the AAPA Lih insect agent has 11% active ingredient, and given Kim contemplates formulating the mat with preferably .02 – 5%w/w of animal pesticidal active ingredient, the implementation of the insect agent into the mat formulation of Kim would provide a medium where, based on a total weight of 10 g of the anti-insect culture medium, the water-based emulsion is in a volume of .018 to 4.5ml (see below for mathematical proof).
V (volume of anti-insect agent in ml) x 11% (%w/v of active agent in insect agent) = W (weight of active ingredient)
W / 10 (hypothetical weight in g of anti-insect culture medium, as mentioned in claim) = Between .02% and 5% (preferred w/w range of active ingredient in medium per Kim)
V = W/11
W = ( .02 * 10) to (5 * 10)
V = (.02 * 10)/11 to (5*10)/11
V = .018ml to 4.5ml (volume of AAPA Lih anti-insect agent per 10g culture medium in order to have a w/w% of active ingredient in the medium between .02 and 5, as suggested by Kim)
The claim requires that, based on a total weight of 10g of the anti-insect culture medium, the water based emulsion is in a volume of .01ml to 2ml, and the prior art discloses a volume of .018ml to 4.5ml (overlapping range – see MPEP 2131.03). The examiner asserts that Kim as modified teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity given there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range and Kim as modified teaches an overlap of roughly 96% of the disclosed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a volume value between .018ml and 2ml would be an acceptable value in the pesticide volume range suggested by the prior art.
However, alternatively, for the sake of compact prosecution, in the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have specifically provided the anti-insect agent of AAPA Lih at a volume of .01 – 2ml per 10g of culture medium, so as to provide a dosage appropriate for the type or age of plant to be grown, or the pests known to affect the plant, or, as disclosed in Kim, based on the presence or absence of another animal pesticide and/or fungicide in the formulation, the type and the amount of release controllable material (Pg 12, lines 4-10), the result having a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 4 above and AAPA Lih further discloses wherein the anti-insect ingredient comprises any of pyriproxyfen, permethrin, milbemectin,
malathion, methomyl and imidacloprid or a combination thereof (pyripoxyfen per Pg 12, line 11).
Claims 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (or alternatively, Kim and Ramsey), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Applicant admitted prior art, (Pg 8/12: a plug from Quick Plug B.V. in Netherlands; Xcellent Plug, a peat soils product which is officially registered in Taiwan with a registration number of “fertilizer importation (auxiliary) No. 0776065” and classified as “7-03-Organic culture medium”), hereinafter referred to as AAPA Xcellent, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 16:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses Kim fails to specifically disclose wherein based on a total weight of the shaped medium, the shaped medium has an organic matter of 65 weight percent to 93 weight percent; the shaped medium per gram has a water absorption capacity of 2 g to 4 g; the shaped medium has a porosity of 15% to 25%; the shaped medium has a dry material with a bulk density of 130 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 ; and the shaped medium has a shrinkage of23% to 33%.
AAPA Xcellent discloses a shaped cultivation medium wherein based on a total weight of the shaped medium, the shaped medium has an organic matter of 65 weight percent to 93 weight percent; the shaped medium per gram has a water absorption capacity of 2 g to 4 g; the shaped medium has a porosity of 15% to 25%; the shaped medium has a dry material with a bulk density of 130 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 ; and the shaped medium has a shrinkage of23% to 33% (inherent properties of the material disclosed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the medium of AAPA Xcellent plug as the raw materials forming the shaped medium of Kim, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide optimal aeration, water absorption, and nutrient content for the type and age of crop that is intended to be grown in the mat, the environment of growth, etc. It has been held that it is within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, the examiner notes that Kim already contemplates using a prefabricated publicly available shaped culture medium as the raw materials (see Pg 21: “Chaobang Topsoil Mat”)
Regarding claim 17:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and further discloses Kim fails to specifically disclose wherein based on a total weight of the shaped medium, the shaped medium has an organic matter of 65 weight percent to 93 weight percent; the shaped medium per gram has a water absorption capacity of 2 g to 4 g; the shaped medium has a porosity of 15% to 25%; the shaped medium has a dry material with a bulk density of 130 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 ; and the shaped medium has a shrinkage of23% to 33%.
AAPA Xcellent discloses a shaped cultivation medium wherein based on a total weight of the shaped medium, the shaped medium has an organic matter of 65 weight percent to 93 weight percent; the shaped medium per gram has a water absorption capacity of 2 g to 4 g; the shaped medium has a porosity of 15% to 25%; the shaped medium has a dry material with a bulk density of 130 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 ; and the shaped medium has a shrinkage of23% to 33% (inherent properties of the material disclosed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the medium of AAPA Xcellent plug as the raw materials forming the shaped medium of Kim, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide optimal aeration, water absorption, and nutrient content for the type and age of crop that is intended to be grown in the mat, the environment of growth, etc. It has been held that it is within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, the examiner notes that Kim already contemplates using a prefabricated publicly available shaped culture medium as the raw materials (see Pg 21: “Chaobang Topsoil Mat”)
Regarding claim 18:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses Kim fails to specifically disclose wherein based on a total weight of the shaped medium, the shaped medium has an organic matter of 65 weight percent to 93 weight percent; the shaped medium per gram has a water absorption capacity of 2 g to 4 g; the shaped medium has a porosity of 15% to 25%; the shaped medium has a dry material with a bulk density of 130 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 ; and the shaped medium has a shrinkage of23% to 33%.
AAPA Xcellent discloses a shaped cultivation medium wherein based on a total weight of the shaped medium, the shaped medium has an organic matter of 65 weight percent to 93 weight percent; the shaped medium per gram has a water absorption capacity of 2 g to 4 g; the shaped medium has a porosity of 15% to 25%; the shaped medium has a dry material with a bulk density of 130 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 ; and the shaped medium has a shrinkage of23% to 33% (inherent properties of the material disclosed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the medium of AAPA Xcellent plug as the raw materials forming the shaped medium of Kim, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide optimal aeration, water absorption, and nutrient content for the type and age of crop that is intended to be grown in the mat, the environment of growth, etc. It has been held that it is within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, the examiner notes that Kim already contemplates using a prefabricated publicly available shaped culture medium as the raw materials (see Pg 21: “Chaobang Topsoil Mat”)
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (or alternatively, Kim and Ramsey), as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, in view of Chittum (US 20250000038) hereinafter referred to as Chittum, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 20:
Kim discloses the limitations of claim 19 above.
Kim fails to specifically disclose that the plant that is planted is an orchid.
Chittum discloses a mat culture medium (¶0052, title), and discusses planting an orchid in the culture medium (see Fig 5, title).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cultivation medium of Kim for the cultivation of any species of plant, including an Orchid, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to perform this method step, as orchids are known to be affected by pests, and providing a pesticide culture medium like in Kim would help aid in healthy growth. Further, it is within the ordinary skill in the art to select a plant that they wish to grow in a generic medium, suitable to their intended purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that Chittum (US 20250000038, used above), also discloses a cultivation medium with many similar material properties to the shaped medium of the present invention (90-97% organic matter per ¶0086; air content at -10cm is 14-40% per table 4, bulk density 100-140% per ¶0084, shrinkage 12-40% per ¶0084). Cheng (CN 112369302 A) appears to be a 102 on at least claim 1; appears to meet the wt% limitations of the pesticide/ingredient (abstract and preparation example 5); and teaches 200+% water holding rate (equivalent to 2g/g, as best understood). Challet (FR 2615689 A1) discloses a porous plant cultivation substrate with an active pesticide retained inside the pores of the matrix. Arakel (WO 2021258139), Inotec (DE 202011004661 U1), Hubacek (WO 9113541 A1), and Cosky (WO 2008122782 A1) discuss the incorporations of insecticides/pesticides in culture mediums. Dummen (DE 202018100737 U1) and Van Der Knaap (WO 2015183094) disclose cultivation plugs with structure similar to that disclosed in the specification/drawings. Spittle (WO 2019074875 A1) contemplates shaped cultivation mediums with similar properties to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642