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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 July 2026 has been entered.
Status
Applicant’s response dated 13 July 2026 to the previous Office action dated 13 February 2026 is acknowledged. Pursuant to amendments therein, claims 1-2, 6, 8-11, and 14-21 are pending in the application.
New claim objections are made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendment canceling the negative limitation regarding BiOCl, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made herein based on the teachings of the previously cited art of Anselmann et al. (US 6,743,285 B1; issued 01 June 2004; of record).
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: they have status identifiers of “Previously presented” yet they contain strikethroughs and underlines from previously entered amendments rather than being clean versions as required per 37 CFR 1.121(c)(3). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anselmann et al. (US 6,743,285 B1; issued 01 June 2004; of record).
Anselmann et al. discloses a pigment mixture comprising a component A and a component B wherein component B comprises a pearlescent pigment comprising mica (i.e., necessarily natural or synthetic) and/or Fe2O3 platelets (i.e., filler particles) (claim 1) coated with titanium dioxide and/or Fe2O3 (i.e., metal oxide coating) (claims 4-5) wherein the mixture is used for finishing/coating of seed (abstract; column 4 lines 44-51) wherein the mixture may include organic pigments and/or dyes (i.e., colorants) (claim 5; column 5 lines 29-36) wherein the mixture may include water (column 2 lines 28-31) wherein the mixture may include acrylate polymer (column 3 lines 19-22) wherein in component B the coating layer makes up about 0.1-5 wt% (column 3 lines 47-56) wherein the ratio of component A to component B is preferably 10:1 to 1:10 (column 5 lines 1-10) wherein the synthetic or natural mica and/or talc and/or silicate materials are platelet-shaped (column 2 lines 32-44) wherein the metal oxide coatings are colorant and are colored or colorless (column 2 lines 32-44) wherein the mixture may comprise 10 wt% silica with TiO2/Fe2O3 coating and 30 wt% talc (Example 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Anselmann et al. as discussed above and to make the pigment mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above as a seed coat and with 10 wt% silica (i.e., filler particles, silicon dioxide) with TiO2/Fe2O3 coating (i.e., a metal oxide coating, titanium dioxide/iron oxide) (i.e., pigment) and 30 wt% talc (i.e., filler particles) (i.e., 25 wt% metal oxide coated filler particles of the total filler particles (i.e., 10 wt% / (10 wt% + 30 wt%))), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Anselmann et al. as discussed above and to make the pigment mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above wherein the mica and/or talc and/or silicate materials therein are platelet-shaped, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Anselmann et al. as discussed above and to make the pigment mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above with organic pigments therein, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize colorant of the pigment mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above by varying the concentration of silica pigment filler particles with TiO2/Fe2O3 metal oxide coating therein through routine experimentation per MPEP 2144.05(II), with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Anselmann et al. discloses that the metal oxide coatings are colorant.
Regarding claim 11, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Anselmann et al. as discussed above and to make the mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above wherein water and acrylate polymer (i.e., a poly(acrylic acid)) are included therein, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Anselmann et al. as discussed above and to make the mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above wherein component A to component B makes up a ratio therein of 10:1 to 1:10, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such ratio corresponds to a concentration of component B (i.e., filler particles and pigment) of about 9-90 wt% of the mixture (i.e., about 9 wt% of component B results in about 90 wt% of component A at a ratio of A:B of 10:1 which adds up to about 100%, and about 90 wt% of component B results in about 9 wt% of component A at a ratio of A:B of 1:10 which adds up to about 100%). Such range of about 9-90 wt% overlaps the claimed ranges of about 0.1-25 wt%, about 3-20 wt%, and about 5-15 wt%, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed ranges overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further regarding claim 19, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Anselmann et al. as discussed above and to coat a seed with the mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-11, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anselmann et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11, and 14-21 above, and further in view of Reus et al. (US 2012/0065060 A1; published 15 March 2012).
Anselmann et al. is relied upon as discussed above.
Anselmann et al. does not disclose additive as in claim 10.
Reus et al. discloses a seed coating composition (title) comprising inorganic particles (claim 1) such as silicate particles (claim 2) such as mica platelets (claim 3) and further comprising one or more plant enhancing agents such as a bactericidal agent (claim 12) wherein the plant enhancing agent is advantageous for a plant or a plant seed (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Anselmann et al. and Reus et al. by including in the seed coating mixture of Anselmann et al. as discussed above a bactericidal agent (i.e., an antibiotic) as in Reus et al., with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so to include therein a plant enhancing agent that is advantageous for a plant or a plant seed as suggested by Reus et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to obviousness 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
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Sue Liu can be reached on (571)272-5539. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights