DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 July 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Election / Restrictions
In response to previous restriction requirement, Applicant has chosen to elect Group III for examination, consisting of claims 1 & 8-11, without traverse [see Response to Election / Restriction dated 20 Jan 2025.
Claims 21-24 were added by amendment after restriction/election of Group III.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 11 & 22-24 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 8-10 & 21 are cancelled.
Claims 2-7 & 12-20 are withdrawn from examination as directed to non-elected subject matter.
Priority
Claims 1, 11 & 22-24 receive the U.S. effective filing date of 06-09-2021
Previous rejection of claims 1, 11 & 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 11 & 22-24 are rejected as being unpatentable over Genty [US 10803312 B2; Published 06-06-2019], Kajiyama [US 3988141; Published 01-23-1975], Marcotte [Cage Mill Operation, Application and Aglime. Rock Products News, ‘rockproducts.com/2020/03/13/cage-mill-operation-application-and-aglime/’; Published 03-13-2020], Scott [Aust. J. Agric. Res., 1992, 43, 1175-85; Published 11-29-1992], , and Evans [Greenhouse Management Online. University of Arkansas Extension, https: //greenhouse.hosted.uark.edu/, verified 23 Feb 2026; Published 2008].
Due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from that set forth in the Office Action dated 9 March 2026. Applicant’s arguments filed 7 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims are drawn to a system comprising the following components/limitations:
(a) growing medium containing ball milled oolitic aragonite comprising particles of 3-10μm,
(b) a plant producing a protein of interest,
(c) incubation equipment including lighting,
(d) at least one sensor to determine at least one parameter of the plant,
(e) a memory,
(f) a processor,
(g) controlling of duration, intensity and wavelength of light,
(h) a CaCO3 soil additive >10% by weight,
(i) control of water, food or chemicals in addition to controlling light,
(j) inclusion of calcium-magnesium carbonate (CaCO3 + MgCO3), and
(k) inclusion of at least one of gypsum, borax, weathered lignite, phosphate, paramagnetic basalt powder, glacial gravel dust, potassium, fulvic acid powder, or humic acid powder.
Genty teaches a system having components (b-g) as claimed in the instant application (i.e. limitations of claims 1 & 22). Claim 1 of Genty [column 18, line 35] provides description of producing 'one or more' plants of interest in an indoor farm. Any plant of interest being grown will produce desirable proteins [i.e. claim 1] that comprise the harvested parts of crop plants. Growing plants in a growth chamber or greenhouse will obviously produce various proteins of the cells and tissues harvested.
The definition of 'incubator' is commonly understood to be an apparatus or controlled environment for the care and rearing of living things. Applicant provides no alternate definition to suggest otherwise. Therefore, an ‘incubator’ includes a greenhouse or any artificially controlled plant growing environment. As such, Genty teaches components (b-g) of the claimed system.
Genty teaches that beyond measurement of generic plant growth (i.e. protein in the form of tissue production), their system operates via “determining…a phytochemical efficiency” of plants in their claim 2. Protein production rate, protein compositional ratio, and/or concentration of proteins is included by such claim (i.e. characterization of protein production is a phytochemical efficiency).
Genty also teaches components of an indoor growing system that sense the plants by using imaging sensors [col.18, 1.49] and analyze the image data [col.18, 1.56]. They teach using this data to control parameters of the growing environment via a data warehouse (memory component) which communicates with a computational decision making-model to provide a data processing function [col.18, lines 54 & 37]. Further, Genty claims information is processed and analyzed by the system to control the light fixtures in the growing environment [col.18, 1.63-67].
Genty’s system modifies light intensity, the spectrum (wavelength), and photoperiod (duration) to optimize plant growth. [Abstract]. Genty thus teaches components (b-g) of claim 1. While they focus on, and claim, lighting parameters it is important to note their disclosure indicates the system can be used to control any crop production input, including water and nutrient applications [col.3, l.45-54].
Thus, Genty teaches all ‘non-media’ limitations of the incubator and plant/plant protein production components (b-g & i) of Applicant's system.
Genty does not teach growing media to be used in such a system, comprising aragonite or other components and their proportions.
However, Kajiyama, Scott, Marcotte and Evans teach all compositional aspects of the growing media claimed by Applicant.
Kajiyama teaches calcium carbonate soil additives ‘containing an amount of’ (i.e. comprising) oolitic aragonite, sourced from the ocean in the form of layers on the coral reefs (i.e. the sea floor) [col.2, l.6-19]. They teach that such ocean-derived liming materials are an improvement over conventional agricultural lime [col.1, lines 12-30].
Kajiyama teaches the use of ‘finely divided’ marine oolitic aragonite as a form of CaCO3 (i.e. an agricultural liming agent or ‘ag lime’) useful to horticulture. They teach that using aragonite in soil mixes can increase yield by 40% and it can be applied in any amount without detrimental effect [Abstract]. They describe the use of aragonite with plants cultivated in pots [col.2, 1.55-67] then specifically claim this use as a soil additive in claim 1 of their patent [col.7, 1.4].
Kajiyama further teaches the various compositional characteristics of aragonite, and its admixture to soils. Kajiyama teaches proportions of aragonite to up to 10% magnesium hydroxide by weight [col.8, 1.10-14]. By definition an additive of two parts, of which one (magnesium hydroxide) can be up to 10% inherently limits the second part (calcium component) to 90-99%.
Kajiyama teaches dolomitic lime and magnesia-lime (i.e. CaCO3+MgCO3) as alternate forms of magnesium replenishing agents that can be used in soil mixes with aragonite [col.1, l.20-23; col.5, l.39-52].
Scott teaches finer sizings of ag lime materials are more desirable due to the functional characteristics of smaller particles. They teach that there is essentially no lower sizing limit to this size-to-value relationship when using ag lime materials (i.e. no particle size is ‘too small’) [p.1184, par.5]. They teach finer grades of ag lime additives have greater functional benefit to soil, and describe testing effectiveness of ground/milled CaCO3 down to a sizing of 0.005mm, which is the equivalent of 5 μm.
Marcotte teaches grinding, or milling, using ball mills to achieve the ultra-fine, small sizes indicated by Scott. They describe that ag lime is reduced in size via crushing mills and that for ultra-fine lime, ball mills are used [par.15-16].
Evans teaches the inclusion of phosphates with calcium soil amendments [See Evans ‘Substrates’, Section 4: Common Substrate Amendments, ‘Superphosphates’].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the system taught by Genty, with the highly beneficial and marine sources of a soil amendment comprising oolitic aragonite taught by Kajiyama, preferably milled into a fine lime additive as described by Scott. Marcotte further directs one to ball mills as a preferred method of generating fine or ultra-fine lime particles. Evans points to other beneficial soil additives, including phosphate(s). Combining these known components, one would arrive at the instantly claimed method and/or system. One trained in researching horticultural production systems would have clear precedent for all components of Applicant’s system as reported in the prior art.
Applicant merely claims a more detailed characterization (i.e. more specific sizing measurements) of an extant product established in the public domain (i.e. ‘sea calcium’), combined with routine processing using ball mills and growing systems. Simply because such small particles (i.e. 3-10μm), are not routinely characterized in commercially graded, ball-milled lime, or are not characterized when the commercially available oolitic aragonite ‘sea calcium’ is used as a CaCO3 source, does not mean particles 3-10μm are not present, absent any evidence to the contrary. Merely looking at an existing product with a ‘bigger microscope’ and describing what one sees does not amount to invention.
Applicant states aragonite, and specifically oolitic aragonite, “occurs on the ocean floor throughout the world” [Specifiction, ¶.65]. Because Applicant uses open claim language, the use of any calcium source dredged or sourced from the ocean floor would reasonably contain some proportion of oolitic aragonite, with its inherent properties.
The shortcoming of Genty's disclosure in not describing the growing medium used is because their research appears to be focused on the environmental control systems, in which any known growing medium might be used. Prior art describes the relevant components of such media, including the clear benefits of oolitic aragonite-based CaCO3 made by Kajiyama, along with the increased efficacy of fine lime additives indicated by Scott, which would make it obvious to combine these components for a predictable outcome of an improved plant growing system.
Additionally, Marcotte directly indicates ball mills can be used to achieve such ultra-fine fractions of ag lime. It would be obvious to seek out any commercial, and renewable source of increasingly refined forms of such calcium, including finely ground sizes of oolitic aragonite. When presented optional methods of milling/grinding aragonite it would be obvious to use the lowest-energy, or cost, means of grinding, milling, or otherwise processing to ultra-fine sizing, including use of a ball mill. It would also be obvious to include magnesium sources such as magnesia-lime, as taught by Kajiyama, and supplemental, known growth-enhancing amendments or additives such as phosphorus, taught by Evans. Such work is routine in the formulation and optimization of growing media.
One would be motivated to combine these disclosures in order to generate a production system with the highest possible potential yield based on known beneficial effects of aragonite as a form of calcium coupled to previously described, automated growing systems. Additionally, the organic and renewable nature of precipitated aragonite provides yet further motivation to utilize ‘oolitic’ marine sand as a source of this ag lime, and to combine it with with other known additives, such as magnesia-lime and/or fertilizers (i.e. phosphorous), to improve crop yield.
Regarding claim 1; Kajiyama teaches the use of ‘finely divided’ marine oolitic aragonite useful to horticulture and specifically claim this use as a soil additive in claim 1 of their patent [col.7, l.4]. Scott directly teaches use of, and benefit contributed by, CaCO3 soil additives in the range of 3-10μm being claimed by Applicant in claim 1 (a). This teaches the size limitation of system component (a) above. Marcotte teaches the use of ball mills directed to the method of producing the ultra-fine sized aragonite additive of component (a) above.
Regarding claim 11; the instant application specifies the calcium component of the additive is at least 10%. Kajiyama teaches proportions of aragonite to up to 10% magnesium hydroxide by weight [col.8, 1.10-14]. This teaches the compositional limitation of component of (h) of the claimed system. Thus, the claimed proportion of the calcium (i.e. not magnesium hydrdoxide) component being >10% is within the range of values taught by Kajiyama.
Regarding claim 22; its distinction is that it is directed to control of plant growing inputs in addition to control of light, via a controller distributing water or chemicals. Genty teaches this. While the focus of their disclosure is the control of light conditions, their automated growing system is described as being able to control any input relevant to or influencing the growth of plants. This is highlighted in their ‘Detailed Description’, wherein they list a variety of input factors to be controlled or regulated based on sensor data [col.4, l.45-54]. This is component (i) of Applicant’s claimed system.
Regarding claim 23; this recites use of calcium carbonate sources including calcium-magnesium carbonate (CaCO3+MgCO3), which is also provided for by Kajiyama’s disclosure, as they teach dolomitic lime and magnesia-lime (i.e. CaCO3+MgCO3) as alternate forms of magnesium replenishing agents that can be used in soil mixes with aragonite [col.1, l.20-23; col.5, l.39-52]. This teaches the compositional limitation of component (a), and component (j) of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 34; Evans teaches inclusion of fertilizers such as phosphates with calcium soil amendments [See Evans ‘Substrates’, Section 4: Common Substrate Amendments, ‘Superphosphates’]. This teaches the component of (k) above.
All limitations of claims 1, 11 & 22-24 were clearly known in the art at the time of filing, and it would be routine for one to combine components of known beneficial soil amendments with existing automated growing systems in order to produce a high-value crop. This would include growing plants engineered to produce valuable endogenous or exogenous proteins in such a system. Because of this, claims 1, 11 & 22-24 are rejected as obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that the previous Advisory Action, directed to a need for determining whether physical characteristics claimed by Applicant via amendment are inherent to oolitic aragonite, as improper. Applicant argues that an Examiner must provide rationale to show inherency [Remarks, p.6, ¶.4]. Applicant argues that the physical characteristics claimed are not inherent to oolitic aragonite, and to this effect provides a Declaration by a subject matter expert regarding the physical characteristics of oolitic aragonite [p.7, ¶.1].
This is not found persuasive for two reasons.
First, the rationale provided in the Advisory Action is that oolitic aragonite claimed appears to be physically defined by the technical characteristics newly recited by Applicant in amended claim language. Thus, any reference to aragonite would refer to material with said inherent, physical characteristics because those physical characteristics define aragonite mineralogically. Kajiyama discloses the benefits of soil amendments comprising aragonite (i.e. lime additives from the sea floor), even though they may not have thought to go so far as to describe highly detailed crystal structure or specific gravity when first reporting their “Method for Improving Soil” in 1976. Proper examination requires determining whether all oolitic aragonite, or aragonite that would have been dredged or harvested from the sea as in Kajiyama, had the claimed physical characteristics (i.e. inherency) as those of Applicant’s material.
Second, Applicant appears to be arguing with respect to basic physical properties that define aragonite, pointing to and reciting such details as the orthorhombic crystal structure. Review indicates all aragonite, whether biologic or non-biologic in origin, has such properties [see p.1, ‘NPL UW Mineral Museum Aragonite’ & p.1 ‘Aragonite – Crystal System’, ‘NPL Wikipedia Aragonite’].
The Declaration provided by the subject matter expert regarding whether the recited characteristics are inherent to aragonite or unique contrasts aragonite to calcite. It does not make any statement or judgement that the specific gravity or crystal structure of Applicant’s material, now recited, differs from (i.e. are not inherent to) what would be naturally expected in material defined as aragonite and found on the ocean floor or in any other deposit. This contradicts Applicant’s argument that the characteristics listed in amended claims are not inherent to aragonite, generally.
Because the claim at issue uses open language in reciting limitations of the soil amendment, of which oolitic aragonite is merely a component (i.e. ‘comprising’) of a marine calcium carbonate source, any prior art describing use of a marine calcium carbonate source with any amount of oolitic aragonite present would inherently have the physical characteristics now recited by Applicant. This is in fact what is emphasized by the subject matter expert; that the recited physical characteristics are what mineralogically differentiate aragonite in marine sands from quarried calcite/limestone. The Declaration clarifies that these properties are inherent to aragonite (i.e. Kajiyama’s soil amendment), as suggested by the general literature.
Additionally, Applicant urges that previous 103 rejection of claims is improper because (1) claim amendments are drawn to unique (i.e. non-inherent) properties of oolitic aragonite as argued in response to the Advisory Action and (2) comparison of aragonite to calcite further distinguishes the claimed soil amendment [Remarks, p.9, ¶.2; p.10, ¶.3-4].
This is not found persuasive for the reasons described above [see p.11—p.12], which indicate the amended claim language merely recites inherent qualities of aragonite. These are therefore taught by Kajiyama in combination with other prior art directed to use of ag liming materials and/or amendments, along with Genty’s automated growing system description.
Applicant argues if, “…Kajiyama intended to…rely on aragonite’s higher density and orthorhombic structure…a skilled person would reasonably expect to see [this] called out” [Remarks, p.7, ¶.3]. Kajiyama states the oceanic material they are using as a beneficial soil additive is, “calcite containing an amount of aragonite” [Kajiyama, col.2, par.2, l.13-15]. It is not convincing, nor reasonable, to expect one to go beyond directly teaching an ‘aragonite component’ to additionally requiring they recite the inherent density, specific gravity, orthorhombic crystal structures, or any and all potentially identifying characteristics inherent to said material. Particularly when such material is referenced by name. Notably, none of these physical characteristics inherent to aragonite were initially recited in claim language by Applicant until presented the prior art of Kajiyama during prosecution.
Additionally, with respect to obviousness rejection in view of Kajiyama, Applicant further argues that prior art (i.e. Kajiyama) only teaches “limestone composed of calcite containing an amount of aragonite”, and does not teach a “fully or substantially aragonitic oolitic material” [Remarks, p.7, ¶.2]. However, Applicant’s claims do not recite a material or soil amendment which is fully or substantially oolitic aragonite – the claim merely states “a calcium carbonite source comprising [i.e. containing an amount of] oolitic aragonite” [Claim 1, line 4].
Applicant admits this is taught by prior art [Remarks, p.7, ¶.2].
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is requested to call Examiner, prior to response, using the contact information below to discuss the features now being included in the claim limitations, and the intended scope and/or potentially unique characteristics of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:30 - 5:30 EST.
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, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (571)270-7058. 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.
/KEITH R. WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights