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 .
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, 3, and 5-9 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 claims as amended are still replete with indefinite language. The following are examples and not necessarily a complete listing.
In claim 1, the step of “drying the pelleted material to obtain dried pelleted seeds” is unclear as to how drying pelleted material results in pelleted plant seeds. Plant seeds are not positively claimed prior to this step or any language defining how the dried pelleted material becomes pelleted seeds. Similarly it is unclear how “screening the dried pelleted seeds” results in pelleted plant seeds and what is the distinction between the two and how is each defined to provide understanding of what is required by this limitation. The steps of preparing pelleted plant seed raw materials and preparing seed raw materials are vague and undefined as it is unclear what is actually required in order to complete the preparing step. The listing of pelleted plant seed raw materials does not clearly state whether these materials are prepared separately or if the materials are combined together. The step of preparing the seed raw materials only requires “selecting” seeds which could be read as a mental step and therefore leaves the step indefinite as to whether those particular seeds are positively required.
In claim 5 it is unclear if the limitations drawn to “a coco peat” and “a matrix” are meant to refer to the materials listed in claim 1 or these are different materials.
In claim 6 it is unclear if the limitation drawn to “a coco peat” is meant to refer to the material listed in claim 1 or this is different materials. Also the limitation requiring 3 kg/ton of the 6 plant seeds from claim 1 is unsupported as claim 1 only claim 6 seeds.
In claim 7 it is unclear how “naturally air-drying” can be controlled or how light and temperature are controlled as there is no structure claimed to carry out the claimed step.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-9 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.
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 MONICA L PERRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
