--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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 1, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/065226 filed on 06/02/2020, and claims foreign
priority in GB1908776.6 filed on 06/19/2019.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 13-15, and 18 are pending. Claims 2-5, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17 were canceled. Claim 8 was amended. Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14 remain withdrawn. Claims 8, 15, and 18 are examined.
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 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Marks (GB 2 431 638 A, Published May 2, 2007 – of record in IDS dated 12/15/2021),
Eriksen (WO 01/49116 Al Published July 12, 2001), and Albert (GB 876,015 Published August 30, 1961).
The claims encompass a composition as described by the claims.
The teachings of Marks are related to caffeine, or a derivative thereof, and its use as a
plant reproductive growth stimulator or in the promotion of maturity in plants or in promoting
flowering, coloration or fruiting in plants (Abstract). An agricultural composition comprising: (i) a member of the caffeine family and (ii) a plant nutrient is provided. These include macronutrients, secondary nutrients and micronutrients (page 5 lines 21-29). Suitable micronutrients include manganese (page 6 lines 7-9). Marks discloses an example of an agricultural formulation prepared by admixing the following components (% w/w): water 37.910 caffeine 0.020 sodium molybdate 0.015 boric acid 0.600 phosphoric acid 33.500 citric acid 5.000 copper sulphate 0.450 manganese sulphate 1.000 magnesium sulphate 6.300 iron sulphate 1.500 zinc sulphate 1.450 cobalt sulphate 0.050 nickel sulphate 0.005 urea 11.200 molasses 1.000 (pages 22-23). Example 2 teaches an agricultural formulation containing the following ingredients (% wt./wt.) 36.65 water, 0.020 caffein 99%, calcium nitrate 37.5, boron 0.83, urea 22, citric acid 1, and molasses 2 (page 23 lines 10-16).
The compositions also comprise one or more other agriculturally acceptable components.
Examples of such components include nutrient material, plant health or growth promoters, plant
oils, metabolic stimulating agents, emulsifiers, thickeners, and suspension agents (page 10 lines
16-22). Suitable thickeners include gums such as xanthan gum (page 11 lines 16-18).
Marks does not teach chelated manganese and 1,3-dimethylurea.
The teachings of Eriksen are related to a plant growth promoting composition comprising
chelated micronutrients among others (Abstract and page 1 first paragraph). Urea was found to
be the preferred nitrogen source, and micronutrients include boron, copper, iron, manganese,
molybdate, and calcium (first full paragraph on page 4). Chelated micronutrients are most
effective compared to salts such as sulphates. Eriksen noted that one reason for this selection was
that chelates were found to be soft to leaf tissue and not as harsh as salts as their split into ions
can cause scorch (first full paragraph on page 4).
The teachings of Albert are related to compositions for use in agriculture for regulating
the growth of plants. It was found that di- and mono- alkyl substituted ureas have a growth
regulating action on plants, and when used at suitable rates of application act as plant-growth
stimulants (page l left column lines 8-15). Valuable mono- or di-alkyl substituted ureas for use
in compositions according to the invention are those in which the alkyl substituents contain from
1 to 4 carbon atoms, the tert-butyl group being particularly preferred. Examples of such urea
derivatives are N-tert-butyl-urea, N,N'-di-tert-butyl-urea and N-N'-dimethylurea (page 1 right
column lines 48-55). Suitable carriers for use in the compositions according to the invention
include both solid and liquid carriers. Liquid compositions according to the invention may be in
the form of solutions, emulsions or suspensions, in water or suitable organic solvents of a
nonphytotoxic nature. Liquid compositions may include one or more dispersing, emulsifying,
suspending, wetting, nutritional, plant-growth stimulating, fungicidal, bactericidal, insecticidal,
acaricidal and/or solid-improving agents (from page 1 right column line 82 to page 2 left column
line 6). Further examples of substances which may be employed in association with urea
derivatives in compositions include for example micro-nutrients, such as the trace elements
copper, manganese and boron, macro-nutrients such as superphosphate, potash and nitrogenous
compounds (page 2 left column lines 42-48). Example 2 teaches a fertilizer solution comprising
13 parts by weight of urea and 1.2 parts by weight of N,N'-di-tert-butyl urea. The solution may
be used directly or diluted to a concentration of 0.1 to 0.2% (page 2 right column lines 90-113).
The teachings of Marks, Eriksen, and Albert are related to agricultural compositions, and it would have been obvious to have combined their teachings because they are
in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claims 8 and 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 have modified
Marks' composition in example 2 by adding a micronutrient salt manganese sulphate, with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from Marks that micronutrient salts such as manganese sulphate are suitable for use in the composition. It would have been obvious to have replaced manganese sulphate with chelated manganese, with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from Eriksen that chelated micronutrients such as manganese are most effective compared to salts such as sulphates. Such modification would have included replacing manganese sulphate with chelated manganese such as Mn EDTA. Eriksen noted that one reason for this selection was that chelates were found to be soft to leaf tissue and not as harsh as salts as their split into ions can cause scorch (first full paragraph on page 4). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results supports obviousness. In the present case, a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to make proposed modification because the modification would have improved Marks' product and it has been held that the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.
It would have been further obvious to have modified Marks' composition in example 2 by
adding 1,3-dimethylurea, with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from
Albert that di-alkyl substituted ureas such as 1,3-dimethylurea are plant growth stimulants and
Albert exemplified a fertilizer composition comprising urea and a di-alkyl substituted urea.
According to example 2, a 0.1-0.5% aqueous solution is produced from a mixture that contains
1.2 parts by weight of di-alkyl substituted urea based on 60 total parts of all components. The
weight % concentration of the urea would be 2% wt./wt. (1.2/60* 100). A 0.1-0.5 % aqueous
solution would have contained the dialkyl substituted urea in a concentration that is less than 2
wt.% by weight of the composition. It would have been obvious to have added 1,3-dimethylurea
in a concentration of less than 2 wt. % by weight of composition because Albert teaches a
fertilizer solution in Example 2 comprising said concentration range as calculated above. There
would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Albert teaches that the di-alkyl
substituted ureas may be formulated in a fertilizer composition comprising micronutrients and
macronutrients and Marks' composition in Example 2 is a fertilizer composition comprising
micronutrients and macronutrients where the intended use of the composition is stimulating plant
growth. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use a combination of urea and a di-alkyl
substituted urea in the composition because Albert teaches an example of a fertilizer comprising
the combination. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain
predictable results supports obviousness.
It would have been obvious to have modified the composition in Example 2 by adding a
potassium macronutrient in a concentration range of 5-20 wt. % with a reasonable expectation of
success because Marks teaches potassium as a suitable macronutrient for use in the compositions
(page 6 lines 4-9), wherein each individual macronutrient is present in a concentration range of
5-20 wt. % (page 6 lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to have added a mixture of
potassium nitrate and potassium chloride, with a reasonable expectation of success because
Marks teaches an agricultural formulation comprising a mixture of potassium nitrate and
potassium chloride (Example 3 bridging pages 23-24). A mixture of potassium nitrate and
potassium chloride is considered an individual macronutrient because potassium is the
macronutrient and both salts are a source of potassium.
It would have been obvious to formed the composition in example 2 to comprise the chelated manganese in an amount that provides a concentration of manganese in the range from
0.001 % wt. to 20 % wt./wt., with a reasonable expectation of success because Marks
teaches that plant nutrient salt will be present in an amount suitable to the nature of the plant
nutrient and further provides ranges of individual micronutrients including 5-20 % wt./wt. (third full paragraph on page 6). Thus, the broadest range in view of these teachings ranges from 0.001 to 20 % wt./wt. More specifically, it would have been obvious to have modified the composition in example 2 to comprise manganese EDTA chelate in an amount to provide 4 % manganese, with a reasonable expectation of success because Marks teaches a composition in example 5 that contains 4% manganese (page 25).
Modified Example 2 composition would have comprised
22 wt. % urea and less than 2 wt. % 1,3-dimethylurea (relevant to claimed i)
0.02 wt. % caffeine (relevant to claimed ii)
1 wt. % citric acid (relevant to claimed iii)
5-20 wt.% (broadly) and 4 wt. % (specifically) Mn EDTA (relevant to claimed iv) and
5-20 wt. % of a mixture of potassium nitrate and potassium chloride.
The claimed concentration ranges are obvious because they overlap with their corresponding concentrations in Marks' modified composition in Example 2, and there is no evidence that any of the claimed concentration ranges is critical. Citric acid is the only acidifier component in modified Example 2.
Regarding claim 15, Marks' modified composition comprises caffein.
Response To Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted in the remarks dated June 1, 2016 were fully
considered but are not persuasive because Marks modified by Eriksen and Albert teaches a composition that meets all of the claimed limitations as described above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights