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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/8/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rannard et al (20170112125) in view of Haverty et al (20100211158) in view of Eldridge (WO2018236596) in view of Glas et al (20180031516).
Rannard, paragraphs 135-141 of the PGPUB, teaches a typical feedstock for drying may comprise:
a) more than 0.1% wt of at least one active agent, for example a water-insoluble active agent;
b) a non-aqueous solvent for the active agent;
c) a carrier material, for example a water-soluble polymer;
d) an aqueous solvent for the carrier material, typically water;
e) a surfactant; and
f) more than 0.1% wt of at least one stabilizing agent, for example a hydrophobic stabilizing agent.
Rannard, paragraph 51 of the PGPUB, teaches a hydrophobic stabilizing non- polymeric material wax.
Rannard, paragraph 56 of the PGPUB, teaches suitable water insoluble active agent can be sterol.
Rannard, paragraph 112 of the PGPUB, teaches the surfactant may be non-ionic, anionic, cationic, or zwitterionic.
Rannard, paragraph 115 of the PGPUB, teaches a cationic surfactant can be a fatty amine salt.
Rannard, paragraph 117 of the PGPUB, teaches mixtures of surfactants can be used.
Rannard, table XI, teaches 10% by weight of a surfactant in the emulsion.
It 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 to use a mixture of a cationic fatty amine salt an anionic surfactant in the amount of 10 wt% of the feedstock as this is one possible combination of surfactants taught by Rannard.
Although the reference teach sterol, the references do not teach a specific sterol.
Haverty teaches a surface coating.
Haverty, paragraph 30 of the PGPUB, teaches the coating the coating may provide a carrier matrix, in which an active agent may be bonded to, adsorbed or entrained within the carrier matrix.
Haverty, paragraph 51 of the PGPUB, teaches the agents may serve a variety of biological functions.
Haverty, paragraph 87 of the PGPUB, teaches phytosterols can be an active agent.
Phytosterol has 29 carbon atoms.
It 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 to use phytosterol as taught by Haverty as the sterol as taught by Rannard as Haverty teaches phytosterols are one specific sterol that can be used in coating composition.
Alternatively, it 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 to use phytosterol as taught by Haverty as the sterol as taught by Rannard as phytosterol is a plant based sterol and therefore easier to obtain that non-plant based sterols.
Further, it 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 that the combination of surfactants can be present in the amount of 10 wt%, the wax can be present in the amount of 5 wt% and the phytosterol can be present in the amount of 5 wt% as this is one specific composition broadly taught by the references.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although Rannard, paragraph 114 of the PGPUB, teaches anionic surfactants, this reference does not teach the surfactants to be an ethoxylated alkyl ester of phosphoric acid.
Eldridge teaches a composition for stabilizing at least one active ingredient.
Eldridge, paragraph 4, teaches the composition comprises at least one active ingredient and at least two of the following: a polycarboxylic acid polymer or a salt thereof, an anionic surfactant, and a wax agent.
Eldridge, paragraph 36, teaches the anionic surfactant can be a phosphate ester surfactant comprising an ethoxylated alkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and/or an ethoxylated dialkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
124
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eldridge, paragraph 38, teaches R1 , R2, and/or R3 are an alkyl radical. In one embodiment, the alkyl radical has from 2 to 20 carbon atoms.
Eldridge, paragraph 42, teaches n is from 2 to 12.
It 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 to use the phosphate ester surfactant as taught by Eldridge as the anionic surfactant as taught by the references above as this surfactant combined with a wax stabilizes an active ingredient.
Given that Eldridge discloses the anionic surfactant that overlaps the presently claimed anionic surfactant, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the anionic surfactant, which is both disclosed by Eldridge and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Although Rannard, paragraph 115 of the PGPUB, teaches a cationic surfactant can be a fatty amine salt, this reference does not teach a primary amine salt.
Glas, paragraph 45 of the PGPUB, teaches a cationic surfactant wherein salts of long chain primary amines may represent such cationic surfactants.
It 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 that a primary amine as taught by Glas can be used as the fatty amine in the fatty amine salt as taught by the references above as this is a common cationic surfactant used in compositions.
The feedstock as taught by the references is the same composition as claimed in claim 1 and therefore it would be expected that the feedstock as taught by the references can be used as a coating composition as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, although claim 3 limits the cyclic alcohol and esters thereof of claim 1 to the ester of the cyclic alcohol, this component is still interpreted as at least one selected from the group consisting of a cyclic alcohol and esters thereof.
Claim 3 does not positively require this component in the composition be an ester of the cyclic alcohol.
Therefore, claim 3 is not further limiting the composition of claim 1 that is met by a cyclic alcohol phytosterol as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, a phytosterol has a molecular weight of about 414 g/mol.
Regarding claim 8, Eldridge, paragraph 4, teaches the composition comprises at least one active ingredient and at least two of the following: a polycarboxylic acid polymer or a salt thereof, an anionic surfactant, and a wax agent.
Eldridge, paragraph 36, teaches the anionic surfactant can be a phosphate ester surfactant comprising an ethoxylated alkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and/or an ethoxylated dialkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
124
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eldridge, paragraph 38, teaches R1 , R2, and/or R3 are an alkyl radical. In one embodiment, the alkyl radical has from 2 to 20 carbon atoms.
Eldridge, paragraph 42, teaches n is from 2 to 12.
Regarding claim 9, Rannard, paragraphs 135-141 of the PGPUB, teaches a typical feedstock for drying may comprise:
more than 0.1% wt of at least one active agent, for example a water-insoluble active agent.
Rannard, paragraph 438 of the PGPUB, teaches kresoxim methyl, in an amount of 10% by weight.
Regarding claim 14, Rannard, paragraph 149 of the PGPUB, teaches the drying feedstocks can be single phase solutions.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rannard et al (20170112125) in view of Haverty et al (20100211158) in view of Eldridge (WO2018236596) in view of Glas et al (20180031516) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Leebrick et al (3234032).
Although the references teach a hydrophobic stabilizing non-polymeric material such as paraffin wax or beeswax, the references do not teach microcrystalline wax.
Leebrick, col. 3, teaches a coating comprising film forming vehicles.
Certain of the aforementioned film-forming vehicles may be composed of a single component, e.g., waxes and oils. Typical suitable waxes may include mineral waxes, e.g., microcrystalline mineral wax, vegetable waxes, e.g., carnauba wax and candellila wax, animal waxes, e.g., bees- wax, etc.
It 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 to use microcrystalline mineral wax as taught by Leebrick as the hydrophobic stabilizing non-polymeric material as Lee teaches vegetable waxes, mineral, animal waxes and bees wax all are film forming vehicles that can be used in coating compositions.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rannard et al (20170112125) in view of Haverty et al (20100211158) in view of Eldridge (WO2018236596) in view of Scherubel et al (4140640).
Rannard, paragraphs 135-141 of the PGPUB, teaches a typical feedstock for drying may comprise:
a) more than 0.1% wt of at least one active agent, for example a water-insoluble active agent;
b) a non-aqueous solvent for the active agent;
c) a carrier material, for example a water-soluble polymer;
d) an aqueous solvent for the carrier material, typically water;
e) a surfactant; and
f) more than 0.1% wt of at least one stabilizing agent, for example a hydrophobic stabilizing agent.
Rannard, paragraph 51 of the PGPUB, teaches a hydrophobic stabilizing non- polymeric material wax.
Rannard, paragraph 56 of the PGPUB, teaches suitable water insoluble active agent can be sterol.
Rannard, paragraph 112 of the PGPUB, teaches the surfactant may be non-ionic, anionic, cationic, or zwitterionic.
Rannard, paragraph 117 of the PGPUB, teaches mixtures of surfactants can be used.
Rannard, table XI, teaches 10% by weight of a surfactant in the emulsion.
It 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 to use a mixture of a cationic surfactant and anionic surfactant in the amount of 10 wt% of the feedstock as this is one possible combination of surfactants taught by Rannard.
Although the reference teach sterol, the references do not teach a specific sterol.
Haverty teaches a surface coating.
Haverty, paragraph 30 of the PGPUB, teaches the coating the coating may provide a carrier matrix, in which an active agent may be bonded to, adsorbed or entrained within the carrier matrix.
Haverty, paragraph 51 of the PGPUB, teaches the agents may serve a variety of biological functions.
Haverty, paragraph 87 of the PGPUB, teaches phytosterols can be an active agent.
Phytosterol has 29 carbon atoms.
It 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 to use phytosterol as taught by Haverty as the sterol as taught by Rannard as Haverty teaches phytosterols are one specific sterol that can be used in coating composition.
Alternatively, it 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 to use phytosterol as taught by Haverty as the sterol as taught by Rannard as phytosterol is a plant based sterol and therefore easier to obtain that non-plant based sterols.
Further, it 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 that the combination of surfactants can be present in the amount of 10 wt%, the wax can be present in the amount of 5 wt% and the phytosterol can be present in the amount of 5 wt% as this is one specific composition broadly taught by the references.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although Rannard, paragraph 114 of the PGPUB, teaches anionic surfactants, this reference does not teach the surfactants to be an ethoxylated alkyl ester of phosphoric acid.
Eldridge teaches a composition for stabilizing at least one active ingredient.
Eldridge, paragraph 4, teaches the composition comprises at least one active ingredient and at least two of the following: a polycarboxylic acid polymer or a salt thereof, an anionic surfactant, and a wax agent.
Eldridge, paragraph 36, teaches the anionic surfactant can be a phosphate ester surfactant comprising an ethoxylated alkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and/or an ethoxylated dialkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
124
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eldridge, paragraph 38, teaches R1 , R2, and/or R3 are an alkyl radical. In one embodiment, the alkyl radical has from 2 to 20 carbon atoms.
Eldridge, paragraph 42, teaches n is from 2 to 12.
It 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 to use the phosphate ester surfactant as taught by Eldridge as the anionic surfactant as taught by the references above as this surfactant combined with a wax stabilizes an active ingredient.
Given that Eldridge discloses the anionic surfactant that overlaps the presently claimed anionic surfactant, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the anionic surfactant, which is both disclosed by Eldridge and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention
Although Rannard, paragraph 115 of the PGPUB, teaches a cationic surfactant, this reference does not teach a cationic primary amine surfactant.
Scherubel teaches an emulsion being of the type containing an effective amount of at least one C8 to C18 primary amine as a cationic surfactant.
It 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 that a C8 to C18 primary amine as taught by Scherubel can be used as the cationic surfactant as taught by the references above as this is a common cationic surfactant used in compositions.
The feedstock as taught by the references is the same composition as claimed in claim 1 and therefore it would be expected that the feedstock as taught by the references can be used as a coating composition as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Scherubel teaches an emulsion being of the type containing an effective amount of at least one C8 to C18 primary amine as a cationic surfactant.
Regarding claim 3, although claim 3 limits the cyclic alcohol and esters thereof of claim 1 to the ester of the cyclic alcohol, this component is still interpreted as at least one selected from the group consisting of a cyclic alcohol and esters thereof.
Claim 3 does not positively require this component in the composition be an ester of the cyclic alcohol.
Therefore, claim 3 is not further limiting the composition of claim 1 that is met by a cyclic alcohol phytosterol as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, a phytosterol has a molecular weight of about 414 g/mol.
Regarding claim 8, Eldridge, paragraph 4, teaches the composition comprises at least one active ingredient and at least two of the following: a polycarboxylic acid polymer or a salt thereof, an anionic surfactant, and a wax agent.
Eldridge, paragraph 36, teaches the anionic surfactant can be a phosphate ester surfactant comprising an ethoxylated alkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and/or an ethoxylated dialkyl ether phosphate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
124
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eldridge, paragraph 38, teaches R1 , R2, and/or R3 are an alkyl radical. In one embodiment, the alkyl radical has from 2 to 20 carbon atoms.
Eldridge, paragraph 42, teaches n is from 2 to 12.
Regarding claim 9, Rannard, paragraphs 135-141 of the PGPUB, teaches a typical feedstock for drying may comprise:
more than 0.1% wt of at least one active agent, for example a water-insoluble active agent.
Rannard, paragraph 438 of the PGPUB, teaches kresoxim methyl, in an amount of 10% by weight.
Regarding claim 14, Rannard, paragraph 149 of the PGPUB, teaches the drying feedstocks can be single phase solutions.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rannard et al (20170112125) in view of Haverty et al (20100211158) in view of Eldridge (WO2018236596) in view of Scherubel et al (4140640) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Leebrick et al (3234032).
Although the references teach a hydrophobic stabilizing non-polymeric material such as paraffin wax or beeswax, the references do not teach microcrystalline wax.
Leebrick, col. 3, teaches a coating comprising film forming vehicles.
Certain of the aforementioned film-forming vehicles may be composed of a single component, e.g., waxes and oils. Typical suitable waxes may include mineral waxes, e.g., microcrystalline mineral wax, vegetable waxes, e.g., carnauba wax and candellila wax, animal waxes, e.g., bees- wax, etc.
It 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 to use microcrystalline mineral wax as taught by Leebrick as the hydrophobic stabilizing non-polymeric material as Lee teaches vegetable waxes, mineral, animal waxes and bees wax all are film forming vehicles that can be used in coating compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/8/25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rannard et al (20170112125) in view of Haverty et al (20100211158) in view of Eldridge (WO2018236596).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20180125064 teaches agrochemical emulsions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732