Syngenta Crop Protection AG

Petition

Petition summary

Invalidity analysis

Prosecution analysis

Examiner search

## 1. Case Identification
- Case #: [PGR2025-00045](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045)
- Patent #: [12,102,027](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/12102027)
- Filed: July 1, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Syngenta Crop Protection](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/syngenta-seeds-inc) AG
- Patent Owner(s): Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
- Challenged Claims: 1-19

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: System and Method for Prescriptive Seed Treatment
- Brief Description: The ’027 patent is directed to a method for prescriptive seed treatment using a planter. The method involves calculating a planting location, selecting a specific combination of seed type and treatment substance, calculating a variable application amount of the substance based on location, and applying the substance to each seed as it is delivered to the soil.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, and 13-16 are anticipated by Wagers under 35 U.S.C. §102.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) (Application # [US2014/0277959](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) discloses every element of the challenged claims. [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) teaches a multi-row planter with a control system that uses a "prescription map" to dynamically adjust planting characteristics based on the planter's real-time location. This includes selecting seed types and agricultural products (e.g., fertilizer, herbicide), calculating application rates that vary by field zone, and applying the substance "contemporaneously" with dispensing the seed. Petitioner contended [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004)’ system inherently performs all steps of claim 1, including providing the necessary planter hardware, calculating location, selecting seed/substance combinations based on conditions, calculating application amounts, and generating the treated seed for delivery to the soil.

#### Ground 2: Claims 1-7 and 11-16 are obvious over Wagers in view of Mitchell under 35 U.S.C. §103.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) (Application # [US2014/0277959](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004)) and [Mitchell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005) (Patent [1,409,564](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted that to the extent [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) is found not to explicitly disclose applying a substance directly onto each seed as it is delivered through a seed drop tube, [Mitchell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005) supplies these features. [Mitchell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005), a 1922 patent, describes an "ordinary" grain drill that sprays a substance onto seed "as it falls" and "while in transit" through "hollow teeth" (i.e., seed drop tubes) just before it enters the soil.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine [Mitchell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005)’s well-known seed spraying configuration with [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004)' advanced prescriptive control system to further the shared goal of improving planting precision. Applying the substance directly to the seed in transit, as taught by [Mitchell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005), is a straightforward way to enhance the precision of the system described in [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004).
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSA would have had a high expectation of success, as incorporating a standard, century-old seed treatment delivery mechanism like [Mitchell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005)'s into a modern planter system like [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004)' would have been a simple and predictable integration.

#### Ground 3: Claims 1-19 lack enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground is based on the insufficiency of the ’027 patent’s own disclosure.
    - **Core Argument:** Petitioner argued the ’027 patent fails to enable a POSA to practice the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The claims are exceptionally broad, covering a method for *any* seed type, *any* seed-applied substance, and *any* application rate, from "pico" scale to "milli" scale. The specification provides no guidance on how to address the immense technical challenges involved. For example, it does not teach how to design a single system that can accurately handle and treat seeds with a >2,000x difference in mass (e.g., corn vs. tobacco), account for variable seed trajectories in a drop tube, or manage the physics of applying vastly different substance volumes and viscosities on-the-fly. Petitioner contended the patent offers only a "wishful roadmap," forcing a POSA into a complex, open-ended research project to invent the necessary applicators, sensors, and control logic for any given combination of seed and substance.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against the dependent claims, arguing that [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004), in view of other art, rendered them obvious. These combinations included [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) and [Wilkerson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1006) (for a timing mechanism, claim 8), [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) and [Batcheller](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1007) (for a substance mixer, claims 9-10), [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) and [Memory](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1008) (for an air-tube-based seed drop tube, claim 17), and [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004) and [Garner](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1009) (for a brush-tube seed accelerator, claims 18-19).

## 4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)
- **Feasibility of the Claimed Method:** A central technical contention is that the method described in the ’027 patent is not feasible across its claimed scope with known technology. Petitioner argued that the physics of seed travel and fluid dynamics make it practically impossible to create a single apparatus that can "individually apply" a "desired application amount" of *any* substance to *any* seed "as it is being delivered to the soil." The patent allegedly ignores critical, real-world variables like seed size, shape, and orientation, which dramatically affect travel time and surface area, as well as the properties of the applied substance (viscosity, density), which dictate the required nozzle design, pressure, and control systems.

## 5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate because the core prior art and arguments were never before the Examiner. Specifically, Petitioner noted that [Wagers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1004)—the primary reference for anticipation and all obviousness grounds—was not in the record of the ’027 patent. Likewise, the secondary references [Mitchell](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1005), [Batcheller](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1007), [Memory](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1008), and [Garner](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/PGR2025-00045/doc/1009) were also not considered during prosecution. Therefore, the [petition](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/PGR2025-00045/2) presents new questions of patentability that the Patent Office has not previously addressed.

## 6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of Post-Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’027 patent as unpatentable.

Syngenta targets prescriptive seed treatment patent: anticipation, obviousness & enablement grounds cited against all 19 claims over Wagers prior art.