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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Remarks
The amendments and remarks filed on 08/12/2025 have been entered and considered. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The rejections and/or objections presented herein are the only rejections and/or objections currently outstanding. Any previously presented objections or rejections that are not presented in this Office Action are withdrawn.
Claim 1 is pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-14 are canceled.
Claim 1 has been examined on the merits.
Priority
This application, U.S. Application number 17/051039, is a national stage entry of International Application Number PCT/KR2019/005139, filed on 04/29/2019, which
claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to KR10-2018-0049556 filed on 04/30/2018.
Rejections - Withdrawn
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. in view of Nussinovitch et al., Kwak et al., and Paau is withdrawn due to
the amendment to the claim filed on 08/12/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (WO 2007/030557, 2007, of record) in view of Nussinovitch et al. (US Patent No. 7422737, 2008, of record), Bon et al. (KR100882013 B1, 2009, Machine-translated English version is attached) and Manhas et al. (WO 2015071890 A1, 2015), as evidenced by Poveda (Biological Control, 2021, 159(104634): 1-8, of record), Mesh-to-Micron Conversion Table (retrieved on 1/16/2025 from https://www.ecologixsystems.com, of record), and Printout of granular definition (retrieved on 5/2/2024 from Google dictionary, of record).
Harman et al. teach a formulation comprising viable microorganisms and a water-insoluble water-absorbent substance (i.e. a carrier), which is used for treating plant and/or seeds for providing resistance to diseases and plant pests (i.e. acting as pesticide) as well as improving plant nutrients (abstract, claims 18, 30, 32, and 34); wherein the water-insoluble carrier can be silica, cellulose, porous beads or powders, porous wood products or a combination thereof (e.g. porous silica, porous cellulose, or porous wood products) (Claims 10 and 20); wherein the viable microorganisms belong to a fungus species from the genus Trichoderma, Beauveria, or Metarhizum, specifically Trichoderma harzianium, for controlling insect pests (Claims 6-7 and 23-24, page 6/lines 5-10, Example 1/page 9/line 27); wherein the viable microorganisms are in the form of spores (Example 1, para 0038/page 9/lines 26-31); wherein the formulation comprises polysaccharides/starch: native or modified starch, glucan, and/or dextrin (small branched starch), which encapsulate the viable microorganisms (Claims 27 and 29) (Note: the polysaccharides/starch is a medium comparable to the “medium” recited in the instant claim 1); wherein the formulation is further air-dried (Claim 17, Example 1/page 10/line 16); and wherein the formulation possesses sufficient activity of the microorganisms effective in a variety applications including applications that require water suspensions, and the formulation has a significantly longer shelf life compared to conventional formulations (page 4/lines 25-31).
Overall, Harman et al. teach a pesticide formulation for controlling pests and diseases of plant or seeds, comprising: a porous carrier (e.g. porous beads or powders of silica, cellulose, or wood); a medium (e.g. starch); and a viable fungus microorganism encapsulated within the medium. Regarding the limitation “cultured in the medium” recited in claim 1, this is a product by process limitation because it describes a step involved in producing the microorganism. The recited microorganism is not limited to the manipulations of the recited culturing step, only to the structure implied by the step. The microorganism taught by Harman et al. has all the same structural features as the claimed microorganism, thus meeting the limitation. Regarding the limitation “infiltrated into pores in the porous carrier”, Harman et al. teach a process of producing the formulation of viable microorganisms, comprising: providing an aqueous suspension of viable microorganisms (encapsulated within a medium/starch) and combining this aqueous suspension with the water-insoluble water-absorbent porous carrier to produce the formulation of viable microorganisms (Claims 1 and 14), which would result in infiltrating the aqueous suspension of viable microorganisms (along with the medium) into pores of the porous carrier that has water-absorbent property, because the aqueous suspension of viable microorganisms is ended up with being absorbed into the porous water-absorbent carrier in the process of producing the formulation of the viable microorganisms. As supported by Example 1 of Harman et al. (page 10, lines 3-4), combining/mixing the aqueous suspension with water-insoluble water-absorbent carrier results in a free-flowing powder, indicating the aqueous suspension of viable microorganisms has been absorbed into the porous carrier. Regarding the “insect-pathogenic microorganism” recited in the claim 1, Harman et al. teach the fungi (including Beauveria and Metarhizum) are entomophagous fungi (i.e. insecticides) (page 1/lines 26-27). In addition, Trichoderma fungi taught by Harman et al. (including T. harzianum) are insect-pathogenic microorganisms (with insecticidal activity against insect pests), as evidenced by Poveda, who teaches that Trichoderma fungi, including T. harzianum, are effective at controlling/killing insect pest of up to 100% (page 1/Highlights; abstract; Table 1; page 4: left col/para 4/lines 7-17; page 6/left col: para 2/lines 1-4). Given that the fungi of Harman et al. form spores (see Harman et al., page 9, line 27), the fungal microorganism of Harman et al. is a fungus that has insecticidal activity against pest and forms spores, thus meeting the requirement of the limitation recited in the claim.
The pesticide formulation of Harman et al. differs from the claimed pesticide formulation in that Harman et al. do not teach the porous water-absorbent carrier is a sponge selected from a foam rubber and a urethane-based resin, and they do not teach including milk as a medium in the formulation. However, Harman et al. teach silica, cellulose, and wood porous material as the water-absorbent carrier, and teach using starch as a medium in the formulation.
Nussinovitch et al. teach a formulation for controlling plant pathogens, comprising: porous carriers of dried hydrocolloid beads with well-preserved porous structure, comprising a viable microorganism entrapped within porous beads, and also a nutrient medium within the beads for providing nutrients and supporting growth of the microorganism (abstract; Claims 1, 6-7, 12 and 25; col. 2: lines16-20, 55-58; col. 4: lines 18-31 and 40-52, Figs. 1-2 and 8); wherein the nutrient medium suitable for their formulation can be starch or low fat milk for supporting growth of the microorganism (col 4/lines 21-23 and 30-31, claim 12); wherein the microorganism in the formulation is a fungus effectively against plant pathogens, and the fungus is Trichoderma harzianum, Trichoderma lignorum or Trichoderma viride (col 4/lines 48-53, Claim 7) (Note: they are the same fungal genius or species as those of Harman et al.); wherein the formulation is preferably in granular form for being applied as seed treatment or to soil/plant (col. 7/lines 43-44); and wherein the entrapping the microorganism within the beads increases viability of the microorganism and extends a shelf life of the microorganism (col 2., lines 34-42 and 55-61; col 4/lines 32-37; col 3/lines 26-28; Claims 1 and 25, last 4 lines).
Bon et al. teach a method of using a porous material for preparing a pesticide for pest management, comprising: cultivating insect-pathogenic nematodes in a culture medium comprising a porous material as a carrier, wherein the porous materiel is a sponge, porous ceramic, or fabric cloth; wherein the sponge is a foam rubber or urethane resin (reading on a urethane-based resin) (abstract, Claims 1 and 3).
Manhas et al. teach a device and method for controlling pests by using a pesticide composition that is released as vapors, wherein the device comprises a substance that is absorbed, impregnated with the pesticide composition, wherein the substance is porous material and it can be a sponge, silica, cellulose, wood, or a cellulose wood fiber (abstract, claim 4, paras 0070, 0071, 0078, and 0080) wherein the sponge is made from a polyurethane foam (i.e. a urethane-based resin) (para 0078, claim 4/lines 9 and 11).
It would have been obvious to modify the pesticide formulation of Harman et al. by using a sponge selected from foam rubber and urethane-based resin as the water-absorbent carrier in a pesticide formulation of Harman et al. for entrapping an insect-pathogenic fungus, along with milk as a nutrient medium, into pores within the carrier, as taught by Bon et al., Manhas et al. and Nussinovitch et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because it is well known in the art to use a foam rubber or urethane-based sponge as porous carriers for a pesticide, as supported by Bon et al. and Manhas et al. In addition, the porous sponge is an art-recognized equivalent of the porous silica, cellulose or wood materiel taught by Harman et al. for the same purpose of acting as carriers for pesticides. Furthermore, it is well known in the art to include milk as a nutrient medium in a biopesticide formulation, as supported by Nussinovitch et al. Moreover, Nussinovitch et al. specifically teach that either starch or milk is a suitable nutrient medium for supporting growth of microorganisms in porous carrier of pesticide formulation, indicating that milk is an art recognized equivalent of starch (a nutrient medium taught by Harman et al.) for the same purpose of supporting fungal microorganism growth. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at modifying the formulation of Harman et al., because the milk nutrient and the porous sponge carrier are respectively art-reggeized equivalents of starch nutrient and porous carrier of Harman et al., and substitution of one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding the limitation “A granular pesticide formulation” recited in the claim 1, it is noted that the term “granular” stands for small particles, according to the Google dictionary (see the printout of record). As indicated above, Harman et al. teach their formulation is in the form of small particles passed through an 8 mesh sieve (Note: it is equivalent to 2.38 mm, as evidenced by the attached Mesh-to-Micron Conversion Table), thus rendering the limitation of granular formulation to be obvious. Furthermore, it is a common practice in the art to prepare the formulation in a granular form, as supported by Nussinovitch et al. Thus, the claimed limitation would have been obvious over the cited prior art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments about the 103 rejection in the response filed on 08/12/2025 (pages 3-4) are based on newly amended claim 1. These arguments have been fully considered but they are moot, because the 103 rejection in previous office action has been withdraw, and the ground of the rejection in this office action is different from that in the previous office action.
Overall, the conclusion of the obviousness of the amended claim 1 has been established for all the reasons indicated above.
Conclusion
No claim is in condition for allowance.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PMR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Qing Xu, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath N. Rao, can be reached at (571) 272-0939. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600.
/Qing Xu/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1656