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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 16, 20-26 and 28 are pending and are under examination. Any objections or rejections not repeated below have been withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 16, 20-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardo US 20060228458 (cited on IDS dated 03/19/2020) in view of Zhao et al. US 20160002483 (cited on IDS 03/19/2020).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 20 Sardo teaches a method for post-harvest treatment of fruit comprising applying to the fruit an edible aqueous formulation, as required by claim 1 (method for treating fruit comprising the application to the fruit of a composition; claim 27).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of lecithin of plant origin as an active ingredient, as required by claim 1; and Sardo also teaches the lecithin of plant origin is lecithin from soy, as required by claim 20 (lecithin of natural origin from soya (soy) that has a phytoprotective effect by delaying or preventing the formation of blemishes or microlesions; [0001], [0016], [0037]). Sardo teaches the formulation consists of between 5-50% lecithin [0041]. This encompasses the claim 1 range of 5-30% lecithin. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of an anti-fungal agent, as may be optionally applied in claim 1 and required by claim 5 (composition comprise the combination of one or more treatment agents for fruit which have fungicidal properties; [0018]).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of water [0052] wherein all amounts are with respect to the weight of the formulation, as required by claim 1 (percentages indicated above and below are understood to be by weight; [0061]).
Sardo teaches wherein applying is done during any one of the stages of a post harvesting period, as required by claim 1 (applied by any means known after harvesting; [0058]).
Sardo teaches the formulation may comprise non-ionic synthetic emulsifying agents [0052], but does not specifically name polysorbate or sorbitan ester, as required by claim 1.
Zhao teaches an edible coating for plants that is effective at protecting fresh and processed produce from various types of damage (Abstract). The composition of Zhao comprises a combination of polysorbate (polyoxyethylene (80) sorbitan monolaurate) and sorbitan ester (sorbitan monolaurate and/or sorbitan monooleate), in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 0.5%, making it possible for the polysorbate to be in the composition at a range of 0.01 to 0.49% and the sorbitan ester to be in the composition at a range of 0.01 to 0.49% [0104], [0108] (Claim 9 and Claim 13). These overlap the claimed range of 0.1 to 20% for polysorbate and sorbitan ester, required by claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Zhao discloses that when additive agents, such as a sorbitan ester (sorbitan monolaurate and/or sorbitan monooleate) in combination with a polysorbate (polyoxyethylene (80) sorbitan monolaurate), are applied as a coating to an object, such as fruit, can reduce water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry [0162].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sardo by incorporating the teachings of Zhao to treat fruit after harvest with a composition containing polysorbate and sorbitan ester because when these are applied as a coating to an object, such as fruit, can reduce water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 2, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo teaches wherein said aqueous formulation is diluted in water at a ratio from 1 to 20 l/m3 of water (Claim 28), or .1 to 2% (v/v). This is within the claimed range of between 0.1-10%.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo teaches wherein the formulation is in a liquid state and is applied via drencher (application by means of showering; [0077]).
Regarding claims 6, 10 and 28, Sardo teaches an edible aqueous formulation for post-harvest treatment of fruit, as required by claims 6 and 28 (the use of lecithin formulated in water for treating fruit by applying to the fruit after harvesting [0001], [0052], [0058]).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of lecithin of plant origin as an active ingredient, as required by claims 6 and 28; and Sardo also teaches the lecithin of plant origin is lecithin from soy, as required by claim 10 (lecithin of natural origin from soya (soy) that has a phytoprotective effect by delaying or preventing the formation of blemishes or microlesions; [0001], [0016], [0037]). Sardo teaches the formulation consists of between 5-50% lecithin [0041]. This encompasses the claim 6 range of 5-30% lecithin and overlaps the claim 28 range of between 1-30%. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of an anti-fungal agent, as may be optionally applied in claims 6 and 28 (composition comprise the combination of one or more treatment agents for fruit which have fungicidal properties; [0018]).
Sardo teaches the formulation consists of water [0052] wherein all amounts are with respect to the weight of the formulation, as required by claims 6 and 28 (percentages indicated above and below are understood to be by weight; [0061]).
Sardo teaches the formulation may comprise non-ionic synthetic emulsifying agents [0052], but does not specifically name polysorbate or sorbitan ester, as required by claims 6 and 28.
Zhao teaches an edible coating for plants that is effective at protecting fresh and processed produce from various types of damage (Abstract). The composition of Zhao comprises a combination of polysorbate (polyoxyethylene (80) sorbitan monolaurate) and sorbitan ester (sorbitan monolaurate and/or sorbitan monooleate), in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 0.5%, making it possible for the polysorbate to be in the composition at a range of 0.01 to 0.49% and the sorbitan ester to be in the composition at a range of 0.01 to 0.49% [0104], [0108] (Claim 9 and Claim 13). These overlap the claimed range of 0.1 to 20% for polysorbate and sorbitan ester, required by claims 6 and 28. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Zhao discloses that when additive agents, such as a sorbitan ester (sorbitan monolaurate and/or sorbitan monooleate) in combination with a polysorbate (polyoxyethylene (80) sorbitan monolaurate), are applied as a coating to an object, such as fruit, can reduce water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry [0162].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sardo by incorporating the teachings of Zhao to treat fruit after harvest with a composition containing polysorbate and sorbitan ester because when these are applied as a coating to an object, such as fruit, can reduce water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, all of which are responsible for significant quality deterioration, microbial spoilage and monetary losses in the food industry, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 8, modified Sardo teaches the aqueous formulation as discussed above in claim 6. Sardo discloses the formulation is in liquid form (formulated in water; [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sardo teaches the aqueous formulation of claim 6 above. Sardo does not teach the formulation comprises glycol.
Zhao teaches the coating composition can further comprise one or more additive agents that when applied to the object to be coated can protect the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity. Zhao teaches the additive agent comprises glycol selected from the group consisting of glycerin or propylene glycol and combinations thereof (suitable additive agents include plasticizers such as glycerin and propylene glycol; [0162]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sardo in view of Zhao to further incorporate the teachings of Zhao by having the composition comprise glycerin or propylene glycol or combinations thereof because when added to the coating composition and applied to the object to be coated it protects the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 13, modified Sardo discloses the aqueous formulation of claim 6 above. Sardo teaches a dilution which comprises the aqueous formulation, wherein said aqueous formulation is diluted in water at a ratio from 1 to 20 l/m3 of water (Claim 28), or .1 to 2% (v/v). This is within the claimed range of between 0.1-10%.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo does not teach the formulation comprises glycol.
Zhao teaches the coating composition can further comprise one or more additive agents that when applied to the object to be coated can protect the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity. Zhao teaches the additive agent comprises glycol selected from the group consisting of glycerin or propylene glycol and combinations thereof (suitable additive agents include plasticizers such as glycerin and propylene glycol; [0162]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sardo in view of Zhao to further incorporate the teachings of Zhao by having the composition comprise glycerin or propylene glycol or combinations thereof because when added to the coating composition and applied to the object to be coated it protects the object from water loss, UV damage, and/or loss of physical integrity, as recognized by Zhao [0162].
Regarding claim 21, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo discloses wherein the method reduces damage caused by post-harvest physiological disorders during the post-harvest treatment of the fruit as determined by visual inspection of the fruit compared to fruit not treated according to the method (treatment of apples after harvesting by means of showering using the treatment composition diluted in water compared to a control which were not treated or only treated with water but subject to the same storage conditions, [0106-0110]; Figure 1 shows the occurrences of decay appearing on the pieces of fruit two to four months following application, where the fruit treated with the treatment method had reduced damage or reduced occurrences of decay by more than 50%, [0110], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 21 above. Sardo discloses wherein the post-harvest physiological disorders include at least one of physiological scald and aging (decay appearing on the pieces of fruit; [0101], [0110]).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 21 above. Sardo teaches the fruit is a pome fruit, as required by claim 23; where the fruit is an apple, as required by claim 24 (apples were treated after harvesting; [0106]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sardo teaches a method of post-harvest treatment on fruit comprising applying to the fruit the edible aqueous formulation of claim 28 (method for treating fruit comprising the application to the fruit of a composition; claim 27). Sardo teaches wherein applying is done during any one of the stages of post harvesting period (applied by any means known after harvesting; [0058]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Sardo teaches the method of claim 1 above. Sardo teaches wherein compared to fruit not treated by the method, the method reduces at least one of: physiological scald during preservation and physiological scald due to senescence; wherein physiological scald is measured by visual inspection (treatment of apples after harvesting by means of showering using the treatment composition diluted in water compared to a control which were not treated or only treated with water but subject to the same storage conditions, [0106-0110]; Figure 1 shows the occurrences of decay appearing on the pieces of fruit two to four months following application, where the fruit treated with the treatment method had reduced damage or reduced occurrences of decay by more than 50%, [0110], Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Wed. and Fri. 7-12 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights