DETAILED ACTIONStatus of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-32 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The remarks filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered and are sufficient in overcoming the previous art rejections which are withdrawn. However, in an updated search Examiner now relies on the teachings Ghosh (US6149927A) in view of Gao (CN107032915A Machine English Translation).
Since the new grounds of rejection are not necessitated by amendment, this action is made NON-FINAL.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US6149927A) in view of Gao (CN107032915A Machine English Translation).
Regarding claims 1-32, Ghosh is drawn to solid compositions containing biocidal compounds that do not rapidly release the biocidal compounds when added to a locus to be protected and methods of controlling or inhibiting the growth of microorganisms in a locus comprising introducing into or onto the locus an effective amount of the solid composition (abstract).
Ghosh discloses a method of eliminating or inhibiting the growth of marine organisms on a structure comprising introducing into or onto the structure to be protected an effective amount of the composition (col. 2, ln 10-20).
Ghosh discloses the term "biocidal compounds" refers to microbicides and marine antifouling agents. "Microbicide" refers to a compound capable of inhibiting the growth of or controlling the growth of microorganisms in a locus. The term "locus" does not include pharmaceutical or veterinary applications. The term "microorganism" includes, but is not limited to, fungi, bacteria, and algae (col. 2, ln 27-34). Ghosh discloses zinc 2-pyridinethiol-1-oxide (col. 2, ln 64).
Ghosh discloses any conventional binder may be utilized in the marine antifouling coating incorporating the compositions. Suitable binders include, but are not limited to: acrylic resins in solvent based or aqueous systems (col. 7 ln 28).
Ghosh does not explicitly disclose the presence of shell fragments in the composition.
However, Gao is drawn to a zinc-rich slow-release fertilizer, comprising the following components by weight: oyster shell, polylactic acid (abstract).
Gao discloses zinc-rich, off-season, pollution-free, high-efficiency slow-release fertilizer [0009]. Gao discloses aA zinc-rich, off-season, pollution-free, high-efficiency slow-release fertilizer for cauliflower comprises the following components by weight: oyster shell 81-82, polylactic acid 45-46, zinc-rich yeast 9-10, cellulase [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these references and modify the composition of Ghosh, to comprise oyster shell, as previously disclosed by Gao, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ghosh and Gao are both in the field of inhibiting the growth of microorganisms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed composition of Ghosh in view of Gao, by applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gao discloses reducing the occurrence of pests and diseases. Further, one having ordinary still in the art would reasonably expect success in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANGLONG N TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0719. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANGLONG N TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights