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 statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a seed pellet consisting of the stated components (as best understood) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The sole figure depicts only a seed pellet that includes features not recited in claim 1 (i.e. layers 5 and 6). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its length is not between 50 and 150 words, and because it includes implied phraseology (“Disclosed is”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it fails to include the proper arrangement, specifically it fails to include distinct sections for brief description of the several views of the drawing(s) and detailed description of the invention. See below for proper specification arrangements and headings.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 2: “a SAP” should read –a superabsorbent polymer (SAP)--
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “a pelleting/adhesive layer” and claim 4 similarly recites “a protective/coloring layer” the use of the slash operator “/” in these instances makes the scope of the claims unclear. Particularly, it is unclear whether the layer of claim 1 must be both considered a pelleting AND an adhesive layer or just one of the two listed descriptors. Similarly for claim 4 – it is unclear whether the layer must be colored AND protective in nature, or just one of the two descriptors.
Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification, and, per MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The claims refer to a seed pellet with a core, a pelleting/adhesive layer, a seed layer, a fibrous layer which covers the seeds in the seed layer at least in part, a wash out layer containing a SAP, and a protective colored layer. A layer is understood under plain meaning as a level of material lying over or under something else. The use of different terminology to refer to various layers (pelleting/adhesive; fibrous; seed; wash out; protective colored) seem to require different distinct layers, specifically, not including the core, at least 4 different layers (pelleting/adhesive; fibrous; seed; wash out; protective colored). However, the specification seems to use the term ‘layer’ in a manner contrary to its ordinary meaning. For example, the specification says that the adhesive layer may form the surface of a grain (i.e. the core), or that it may consist of the core material. The specification also says that the fibrous layer consists of fibers adhered to the adhesive layer, between the seeds of the seed layer, and similarly that the SAP consists of merely individual SAP particles which are adhered to the adhesive layer between the seeds and fibers. This makes it seem as though, at the least, the fibrous, wash out, and seed layers may be integrated, and really form one layer (thickness-wise). This inconsistency makes the scope of the term ‘layer’ unclear, particularly in whether the applicant is redefining the term ‘layer’ contrary to its plain meaning with their disclosure, and whether the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is meant to include pellets without materially, and/or locationally distinct layers (e.g. would a pellet with a core, and a layer of slurry surrounding the core, formed from seeds with adhesive, fibers, and SAPs read on the claim – aka could this layer of slurry be considered the seed layer, adhesive layer, fibrous layer, AND washout layer?). The applicant must clarify for the record such that the scope of their claims is clear.
Claim 1 recites “it has a fibrous layer”, but it is not clear what the applicant refers to when they use the term “it”. Is the fibrous layer a part of the seed layer or more generally a part of the seed pellet? Similar issue with “it” in claims 2, 4, and 6.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the seeds" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the stated components" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is generally unclear how claim 6 serves to limit the invention. The term “consisting of” is generally used as a transitional phrase, is closed ended, and limits the claim to the elements listed; however, in this case, it is unclear what elements the seed pellet structure is being limited to.
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, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Legro (US 5623781 A, as cited on applicant’s IDS), hereinafter referred to as Legro, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Legro discloses a seed pellet (‘Example III’: Col 5-6) having a core (Col 5-6: perlite granule), a pelleting/adhesive layer (Col 5-6: “5% carboxymethyl cellulose”, and a seed layer (Col 5-6: “lobelia seeds”), characterized in that it has a fibrous layer which covers the seeds in the seed layer at least in part (Col 5-6: inert powder material mixture with coarse fiber).
Regarding claim 4:
Legro discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that it comprises a protective/colored layer (Col 5-6: finishing powder mixture with talcum).
Regarding claim 6:
Legro discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that the seed pellet consists of the stated components (as best understood; see rejection of claim 1 above, Fig 3, and ‘Example III’).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legro, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Simmons (US 4465017 A), hereinafter referred to as Simmons, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Legro discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Legro fails to explicitly disclose that it comprises a wash-out layer.
Simmons discloses a process of seed coating, where a wash out layer is provided in a seed coating (Col 2, lines 1-42; abstract; Col 3, lines 33-34)
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 a superabsorbent wash out layer to the seed pellet of Legro, as in Simmons, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Simmons, such a layer draws moisture from the surrounding environment for supply to the seed, the swelling of such a labor helps improve the soil contact between the seed and the soil, and encourages rapid root growth (Col 2, lines 1-42).
Regarding claim 3:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and Simmons further discloses that the wash-out layer contains a SAP (Col 3, lines 50-65).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legro, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Li (CN 110028844 A), hereinafter referred to as Li, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 5:
Legro discloses the limitations of claim 4 above.
Legro fails to disclose that the protective/colored layer contains wax.
Li discloses a coated seed with an outermost layer that contains wax (water control layer 1, Fig 1; ¶0055; ¶0086).
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 wax in the, or as the, outermost layer of the coated seeds of Legro, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Li, providing a more hydrophobic layer helps seal the seed, and prevent water from entering the seed particles so as to avoid premature germination caused by accidental moisture absorption (¶0026).
Conclusion
Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Krecisz (EP 3695696 A1), Fabritz (DE 102005040873 A1), Kim (KR 20190138023 A), and Burgesser (US 2579735 A).
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
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
