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 statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been 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 1-2, 5-15 and 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one or more selected from the group consisting of a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound" in lines 2-3. Further, in lines 5-10, claim 1 recites "the magnesium compound comprises one or more selected from magnesium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, magnesium silicate or combination thereof, the sodium compound comprises sodium hydrogen carbonate, sodium alginate or combination thereof, and the calcium compound comprises calcium hydroxide, calcium silicate or combination thereof". Thus, it is unclear which and how many compounds are required since the claim initially only requires one of a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound, but the remaining claim language requires a specific calcium compound, magnesium compound, and sodium compound.
Claims 2, 5-15 and 25 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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, 8-10, 12-15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0054022) in view of Kusakabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,301).
For claim 1, Ward discloses an additive (as discussed in [0054]: additives), the additive comprising an extender (as discussed in [0070]: “bran”, “coffee grounds”, “corn cobs”, “cottonseed meal”, “soybean hulls”) and an antacid (as discussed in [0070]: “compounds”), wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound (as discussed in [0070]: aluminum silicate); and one or more selected from the group consisting of a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound (as discussed in [0070]), the magnesium compound comprises magnesium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, magnesium silicate (as discussed in [0070]) or combination thereof, the sodium compound comprises sodium hydrogen carbonate, sodium alginate (as discussed in [0070]) or combination thereof, and the calcium compound comprises calcium hydroxide, calcium silicate (as discussed in [0070]) or combination thereof.
Ward fails to show a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid (extender : antacid) is 99.5 : 0.5 to 10 : 90. Kusakabe et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender and an antacid (Col. 1, lines 37-43: aluminum compounds added to the sawdust medium); wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound (Col. 1, lines 37-39); and one or more selected from a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound (Col. 2, lines 32-62: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” and “aluminum or any of the aluminum compounds may be used either alone or in combination”); and a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid is 99.5 : 0.5 to 10 : 90 (Col. 2, lines 34-57: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” such that Col. 2, lines 38-40 discloses “When magnesium aluminometasilicate is used, for example, the weight ratio is preferably 1~20:100, most preferably 7~13:100.” which is within the claimed dry weight ratio when 90 extender : 10 antacid = 100 sawdust : 11.1111 aluminum and magnesium aluminometasilicate). 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 additive of Ward to include the dry weight ratio as taught by Kusakabe et al. for the advantage increasing the product yield.
For claim 2, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein the extender comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of sawdust powder, corn cob meal, bagasse, beet waste, okara, coffee grounds, soybean hull, rice bran, wheat bran, and cottonseed hull (Ward as discussed in [0070]: “bran”, “coffee grounds”, “corn cobs”, “cottonseed meal”, “sawdust”, “soybean hulls”).
For claim 8, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid is 98.4 : 1.6 to 10 : 90 (Kusakabe et al. Col. 2, lines 34-57: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” such that Col. 2, lines 38-40 discloses “When magnesium aluminometasilicate is used, for example, the weight ratio is preferably 1~20:100, most preferably 7~13:100.” which is within the claimed dry weight ratio when 90 extender : 10 antacid = 100 sawdust : 11.1111 aluminum and magnesium aluminometasilicate).
For claim 9, Ward shows the additive can be in the form of dry powder and dry formulations (as discussed in [0044] and [0059]), but fails to show wherein the additive has a repose angle of 50 degrees or less. However, 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 additive of Ward and Kusakabe et al. to include the additive having a repose angle of 50 degrees or less, for the advantage of improving flowability and ability to mix with a base material, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 10, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose a method for producing a mushroom culture medium, the method comprising: mixing an extender and an antacid to obtain an additive (Ward as discussed in [0064], [0068], [0070], and the rejection above for claim 1) for a mushroom culture medium (Kusakabe et al. Col. 1, lines 37-43); and mixing the additive of claim 1 and a base material (Ward as discussed in [0043], [0044]: “The compositions comprising one or more chemical fungicides and/or one or more of the bacterial or fungal strains recited herein, or an active variant thereof, can further comprise an agriculturally acceptable carrier.” and Kusakabe et al. Col 2, lines 16-21: “rice bran” or “soybean meal”) for a culture medium to obtain a mushroom culture medium (Kusakabe et al. Col. 1, lines 17-28).
For claims 12-14, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound and a calcium compound; an aluminum compound and a magnesium compound; an aluminum compound and a sodium compound (Ward as discussed in [0070] and Kusakabe et al. Col. 2, lines 32-62: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” and “aluminum or any of the aluminum compounds may be used wither alone or in combination”).
For claim 15, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein the antacid excludes at least one selected from the group consisting of calcium aluminosilicate and magnesium aluminometasilicate (Kusakabe et al. Col. 1, lines 40-55).
For claim 25, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose additive according to claim 1, wherein the extender excludes sawdust powder (Ward as discussed in [0070]: “bran”, “coffee grounds”, “corn cobs”, “cottonseed meal”, “soybean hulls”).
Claims 16, 19-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0054022) in view of Nakamura et al. (CN 114258264 A) and Kusakabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,301).
For claim 16, Ward discloses an additive (as discussed in [0054]: additives) comprising an extender (as discussed in [0070]: “bran”, “coffee grounds”, “corn cobs”, “cottonseed meal”, “soybean hulls”) and an antacid (as discussed in [0070]: “compounds”), wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound (as discussed in [0070]), and wherein the aluminum compound comprises aluminum hydroxide, calcium aluminosilicate, calcium aluminate hydrate, dawsonite, zeolite (as discussed in [0070]), hydrocalumite or a combination thereof.
Ward fails to show one or more selected from the group consisting of calcium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound (second and fifth paragraphs on page 3); and one or more selected from the group consisting of calcium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide (last paragraph on page 3). 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 additive of Ward to include one of calcium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage improving plant growth conditions.
Ward fails to show a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid (extender : antacid) is 99.5 : 0.5 to 10 : 90. Kusakabe et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender and an antacid (Col. 1, lines 37-43: aluminum compounds added to the sawdust medium); wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound (Col. 1, lines 37-39); and one or more selected from a calcium compound and a magnesium compound (Col. 2, lines 32-62: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” and “aluminum or any of the aluminum compounds may be used either alone or in combination”); and a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid is 99.5 : 0.5 to 10 : 90 (Col. 2, lines 34-57: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” such that Col. 2, lines 38-40 discloses “When magnesium aluminometasilicate is used, for example, the weight ratio is preferably 1~20:100, most preferably 7~13:100.” which is within the claimed dry weight ratio when 90 extender : 10 antacid = 100 sawdust : 11.1111 aluminum and magnesium aluminometasilicate). 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 additive of Ward to include the dry weight ratio as taught by Kusakabe et al. for the advantage increasing the product yield.
Ward shows the additive can be in the form of dry powder and dry formulations (as discussed in [0044] and [0059]), but fails to show wherein the additive has a repose angle of the additive for a mushroom culture medium is 46 degrees or less. However, 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 additive of Ward to include the additive having a repose angle of the additive for a mushroom culture medium is 46 degrees or less, for the advantage of improving flowability and ability to mix with a base material, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 19, Ward as modified by Nakamura et al. and Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 16, wherein a moisture content in the additive is from 0% to 30% by weight of a total amount of the additive (Nakamura et al. last paragraph of page 10 shows the additive content comprising aluminum hydroxide 18.3 wt %, calcium hydroxide 64.5 wt % and magnesium carbonate 17.2 wt %, thus 0% moisture content by weight).
For claim 20, Ward as modified by Nakamura et al. and Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 16, wherein the content of aluminum atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (Nakamura et al. last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 21, Ward as modified by Nakamura et al. and Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 16, wherein the content of calcium atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (Nakamura et al. last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 26, Ward as modified by Nakamura et al. and Kusakabe et al. disclose additive according to claim 16, wherein the extender excludes sawdust powder (Ward as discussed in [0070]: “bran”, “coffee grounds”, “corn cobs”, “cottonseed meal”, “soybean hulls”).
Claims 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0054022) in view of Kusakabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,301), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nakamura et al. (CN 114258264 A).
For claim 5, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the content of aluminum atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the content of aluminum atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (last paragraph on page 5). 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 content of aluminum atoms in the antacid of Ward and Kusakabe et al. to include 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of optimizing the pH for mushroom cultivation (Nakamura as discussed in the last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 6, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the content of calcium atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the content of calcium atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (last paragraph on page 5). 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 content of calcium atoms in the antacid of Ward and Kusakabe et al. to include 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of optimizing the pH for mushroom cultivation (Nakamura as discussed in the last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 7, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the content of magnesium atoms in the antacid is 30% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the content of magnesium atoms in the antacid is 30% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (last paragraph on page 5). 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 content of magnesium atoms in the antacid of Ward and Kusakabe et al. to include 30% by weight or less in terms of oxides as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of optimizing the pH for mushroom cultivation (Nakamura as discussed in the last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 11, Ward as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein a moisture content is from 0% to 30% by weight of a total amount of the additive. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein a moisture content in the additive is from 0% to 30% by weight of a total amount of the additive (last paragraph of page 10 shows the additive content comprising aluminum hydroxide 18.3 wt %, calcium hydroxide 64.5 wt % and magnesium carbonate 17.2 wt %, thus 0% moisture content by weight). 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 moisture content of the additive of Ward and Kusakabe et al. to include from 0% to 30% by weight as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of preventing fungal growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-16, 19, 20, 25 and 26 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 argues “In making the rejection, with respect to the recited a repose angle…Applicant respectfully submits that this reasoning does not apply here, because a parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before its optimization can be considered routine experimentation - i.e., "a variable which achieves a recognized result." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,620 (CCPA 1977); see MPEP § 2144.05(III) (C). Neither Nakamura nor Kusakabe discloses the angle of repose of the claimed additive, much less recognizes any relationship between that parameter and any result. Indeed, neither reference discloses an additive comprising an extender pre-blended with an antacid whose angle of repose could be measured or optimized at all. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[i]n cases in which the disclosure in the prior art was insufficient to find a variable result- effective, there was essentially no disclosure of the relationship between the variable and the result in the prior art." In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1297; see also MPEP § 2144.05(III)(C); E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (an applicant may rebut a prima facie case by showing that the claimed variable "was not recognized in the prior art to be a result- effective variable").”
The examiner maintains that the reference to Ward shows the additive can be in the form of dry powder and dry formulations (as discussed in [0044] and [0059]), such that the slope of the material, particularly the claimed repose angle is 46 degrees or less and 50 degrees or less. This claimed limitation being variable based on the desired additive composition, and thus obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the advantage of improving flowability and ability to mix well with a base material, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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
