Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,011,528, as cited by Applicant) in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0291480).
For claim 1, Dorris et al. discloses a plant seedlings growth composition, consisting essentially of: cellulose filaments, an aqueous liquid (Col. 24, lines 52-54), wherein the cellulose filaments are at a consistency of between about 4% and 50% in the mixture (Col. 24, lines 64-67).
Dorris et al. fails to show one or more cation exchange capacity enhancers. Nakajima et al. teaches a plant seedlings growth composition, consisting essentially of: cellulose material (Fig. 2(a) and [0050]: 3) and one or more cation exchange capacity enhancers ([0043]), wherein the composition has a cation exchange capacity of 10 or above ([0043]). 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 composition of Dorris et al. to include the cation exchange capacity enhancers as taught by Nakajima et al. for the advantage of providing sufficient fertilizer retentivity.
For claim 4, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the mixture is soil-free (there is no mention of soil in the composition of the Dorris et al. reference).
For claim 6, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the cellulose filaments have an average aspect ratio from about 200 to about 5000; an average width from about 30 nm to about 500 nm; and an average length of about 200 µm to about 2 mm (Dorris et al. Col. 10, lines 50-59).
For claim 7, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show wherein the cellulose filaments are at a consistency of between about 28% and 35% in the mixture. 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 composition of Dorris et al. and Nakajima et al. to include cellulose filaments at a consistency of between about 28% and 35% in the mixture for the advantage of providing resiliency to a molded product of the composition, 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, Dorris et al. discloses a method of forming a plant seedlings growth composition, comprising: preparing a mixture of cellulose filaments and an aqueous liquid (Col. 24, lines 52-54), wherein the cellulose filaments are being at a consistency of between about 4% and 50% in the mixture (Col. 24, lines 64-67). Dorris et al. fails to specifically show one or more cation exchange capacity enhancers. Nakajima et al. teaches a plant seedlings growth composition, consisting essentially of: cellulose material (Fig. 2(a) and [0050]: 3) and one or more cation exchange capacity enhancers ([0043]), wherein the composition has a cation exchange capacity of 10 or above ([0043]). 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 composition of Dorris et al. to include the cation exchange capacity enhancers as taught by Nakajima et al. for the advantage of providing sufficient fertilizer retentivity (Nakajima et al. [0042]).
For claim 13, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the cellulose filaments are untreated (Dorris et al. Col. 10, lines 63-65) or treated.
For claim 15, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the cellulose filaments have an average aspect ratio from about 200 to about 5000; an average width from about 30 nm to about 500 nm; and an average length of about 200 µm to about 2 mm (Dorris et al. Col. 10, lines 50-59).
Claims 2, 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,011,528, as cited by Applicant) in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0291480), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Dorris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,803,320, as cited by Applicant, herein Dorris et al. ‘320).
For claims 2 and 3, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. fails to show the composition, wherein the cellulose filaments are treated. Dorris et al. ‘320 teaches it is well known practice that cellulose filaments are treated to enhance the cation exchange capacity by derivatization (Col. 1, lines 59-63). 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 composition of Dorris et al. and Nakajima et al. to include derivatizing cellulose filaments as taught by Dorris et al. ‘320 for the advantage of maintaining flexible filaments within the composition.
For claim 14, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show further treating the cellulose filaments to enhance the cation exchange capacity of the mixture, wherein the treating comprises derivatizing the cellulose filaments. Dorris et al. ‘320 teaches it is well known method of treating cellulose filaments to enhance the cation exchange capacity by derivatizing the cellulose filaments (Col. 1, lines 59-63). 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 method of Dorris et al. and Nakajima et al. to include derivatizing the cellulose filaments as taught by Dorris et al. ‘320 for the advantage of maintaining flexible filaments within the mixture.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,011,528, as cited by Applicant) in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0291480), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ben et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0150749 as cited by Applicant).
For claim 5, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show wherein the cellulose filaments are never-dried cellulose filaments. Ben et al. teaches a mixture of cellulose filaments, wherein the cellulose filaments are never-dried cellulose filaments (as discussed in [0081] and [0092]). 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 composition of Dorris et al. and Nakajima et al. to include the cellulose filaments as taught by Ben et al. for the advantage of improving the strength of the mixture.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,011,528, as cited by Applicant) in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0291480), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hua et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,856,607, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 8, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the cellulose filaments are unbleached. However, Hua et al. teaches a mixture of cellulose filaments comprising: unbleached cellulose filaments (as discussed in Table 6, Col. 14, lines 31- 33). 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 composition of Dorris et al. and Nakajima et al. to include the unbleached cellulose filaments as taught by Hua et al. for the advantage of retaining a high viscosity to improve the strength properties of a product produced by the composition.
For claim 12, Dorris et al. as modified by Nakajima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the cellulose filaments are unbleached. However, Hua et al. teaches a mixture of cellulose filaments comprising: unbleached cellulose filaments (as discussed in Table 6, Col. 14, lines 31- 33). 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 method of Dorris et al. and Nakajima et al. to include the unbleached cellulose filaments as taught by Hua et al. for the advantage of retaining a high viscosity to improve the strength properties of a product produced by the composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Dorris discloses construction gypsum panels. Accordingly, Dorris is clearly non-analogous art to the present application or to other prior art disclosing compositions or media for plant growth. Indeed, plants are not cultivated in drywall panels.”, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the composition of Dorris et al. includes the claimed consistency of cellulose filaments in addition to gypsum. Applicant’s cited reference to Reiersen et al. shows it is well known that gypsum and cellulose are used for paper and board production, as well as plant growth media compositions. One having ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize the reference to Dorris et al. is relevant to show the wide variety of applications using compositions containing cellulose filaments and gypsum in the form of pressed board for the advantage of providing a stable fibrous growing media of desired shape.
For the arguments with regard to the reference to Ben et al. “The function and features of CF disclosed in Ben differ significantly from the function and features of CF in the present claims. In Ben, CF are used to enhance the wet-web strength of agricultural sheets during papermaking. Ben adds CF to slurries of agricultural materials and processes them into sheets using high-speed papermaking machines.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims require a composition comprising cellulose filaments and an aqueous liquid. The consistency of the composition is not given in the claim, and further the reference to Ben explicitly recites that cellulose filaments are added to slurries of agricultural materials. Thus, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
For the arguments with regard to the reference to Hua et al. “As stated in the specification at paragraph [0019], Hua does not suggest or disclose a seedling growth composition consisting essentially of CF, an aqueous liquid and one or more CEC enhancers.” The Examiner did not rely on the reference to Hua for the teachings of the amended claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Spender (CA 3016695 A1) shows a method of derivatizing cellulose filaments.
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