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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 13-25 and 27-30 are pending in the application. Claims 13, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 24 have been amended. Claims 27-30 are newly added. Claims 13-25 and 27-30 will be examined.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claims 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Babler et al. (US 2003/0221365) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 to add the limitations from cancelled claim 26.
The rejection of claims 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botts et al. (US 2006/0193882) in view of Wood Rosin (2014, Handling/Processing Technical Evaluation Report) as evidenced by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament Article 3(5) (2006, Official Journal of the European Union). Botts et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS date 1/17/2022 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 13, 15, 19-20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babler et al. (US 2003/022135) in view of Halecky et al. Publication (2016, Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems, Halecky et al.) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babler et al. (US 2003/022135) in view of Halecky et al. Publication (2016, Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems, Halecky et al.) as applied to claims 13, 15, and 17-26 above, and further in view of Walker Publication (1927, Bureau of Standards Journal of Research) is maintained.
Rejections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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.
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 13, 15, 17-25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babler et al. (US 2003/022135) in view of Halecky et al. Publication (2016, Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems, Halecky et al.). Babler et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS date 1/17/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a coated seed composition comprising: at least one seed; and at least one layer coating all or part of the seed, the layer comprising, as a binder, at least one rosin-based resin from a resin dispersion comprising the at least one rosin-based resin wherein the solids content in the resin dispersion is at least 20 % by weight, relative to the overall weight of the dispersion, and wherein the relative amount of the rosin-based resin in the binder is such that the amount as dry solids content of the rosin-based resin applied onto the seed is lower than 3 wt.%, relative the total weight of the seed. Applicant claims the composition comprising a dust value, as measured using a Heubach dustmeter device according to the Euroseeds reference method, which is lower by at least 30% as compared to an analogous binder-fee composition that does not contain the rosin-based resin. Applicant also claims a method for preparing a coated seed composition having dust suppression benefits comprising the step of contacting at least a portion of at least one seed with at least on layer comprising at least one rosin-based resin, wherein the coated seed composition comprises a dust value, as measured using a Heubach dustmeter device according to the Euroseeds reference method, which is lower by at least 30% or 50% as compared to an analogous binder-free composition that does not contain the rosin-based resin.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 13, 18, 23, and 24, Babler et al. teach 300 grams IRGALITE Red C2B from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. which is a rosin and resin acid salt (rosin based resin) treated C.I. Pigment Red 48.2 is blended on a roller gear with 50 grams Canfil 7 from Canada Talc Ltd. (binder), which has an average particle size of 7 µm and 100 grams Librel Zn (active ingredient) from Ciba Specialty Chemicals. The resulting blend is micro pulverized in an assemble micro pulverizer using a 0.027 inch round hole screen and a rotating speed of 14500 RPM yielding an easily dispersible dry pigment concentrate which homogeneously colors seeds (seeds) in a strong red color and additionally promotes growth (page 6, paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 13, 18, 23, and 25, Babler et al. teach in Example 4, 1000 grams IRGALITE Blue GE granules from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., which is a hydrogenated rosin treated C.I. Pigment Blue 15.3 is pulverized in an assemble micro pulverizer using a 0.125 inch round hole screen and a rotating speed of 7000 RPM (page 6, paragraph 66). 900 grams of the above resulting pulverized pigment is blended with 225 grams Canfil 7 (binder) and 300 grams Librel Zn (active ingredient) from Ciba Specialty Chemicals. The mixture is air jet milled with a MicroJet® air jet mill (from Fluid Energy Aljet, Plumsteadville Pa.) to a top particle size of below 10 µm. The resulting blue dry pigment concentrate is ideally suited for homogeneously coloring seeds in a consistent blue color (page 6, paragraph 67).
Babler et al. teach grass seeds colored with such a blue pigment concentrate show the advantage of a notably faster growth behavior versus the uncolored or differently treated seeds (page 6, paragraph 68).
Regarding claims 13, 18, 23, and 24, Babler et al. teach one-gallon porcelain testing jug is charged with one quart distilled water. Using a laboratory stirrer, 20 oz equal blends XL (R-[(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-methoxyacetylamino]-propionic acid methyl ester) an TL (N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methyloxyacetyl)alanine methyl ester) aprons and one teaspoon (about 1.5 grams) of the blue pigment concentrate prepared according to Example 4 are added and stirred until a homogeneous pigment dispersion is generated. In roller tumblers containing 2 pounds each of various seeds, the above blue dispersion is added to each and rolled for 30 minutes. The mixture is removed and the liquid is decanted. The solids are placed on a drying tray and dried with forced air for 72 hours, resulting in commercially acceptable intense blue stained seeds (page 7, paragraph 76). Babler et al. disclose surprisingly, under controlled testing conditions: canola, cotton, corn, soybean, Kentucky Blue and Kentucky fescue grass seeds all exhibited faster germination when colored with the above blue dispersion within 60 hours, whereas the uncolored seeds indicated little growth (page 7, paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 17, Babler et al. teach the colored seed comprises a seed having an exterior surface coated with at least one layer of pigment concentrate that comprises from 85 to 99.5 parts by weight of an organic pigment, and from 0.5 to 15 parts by weight of a polar polymer or copolymer having a weight average molecular weight of not more than 300,000, relative to one another. Babler et al. teach the polar polymer or copolymer is a polyvinyl pyrrolidone or copolymer thereof with an average molecular weight of above 5000 (page 4, paragraph 35).
Regarding claims 17, 19, 21, 23, and 24, Babler et al. teach in example 6, 2286 grams aqueous presscake containing 802 grams dry weight isoindolinone pigment IRGAZIN YELLOW 3 RLTN (C.I. Pigment Yellow 110 from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., Newport Del.). In a one-liter glass beaker 59.6 grams of an aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone solution are dissolved in 200 ml water. Then 80.2 grams ULTRA Talc 609 from Barretts Minerals Inc. are added into the aqueous resin solution and stirred until completely wetted. The aqueous talc/resin mixture is added to the yellow isoindolinone pigment presscake in the WARING blender. The mixture is blended at medium to high speed generating easily flowable liquid yellow pigment dispersion (page 6, paragraphs 70-72). Babler et al. teach that two batches of the above aqueous yellow pigment dispersion are combined, followed by spray drying in a pilot plant spray dryer (the BOWEN BLS from Bowen) yielding 1.78 kg yellow pigment concentrate in a micro granule form (page 6, paragraph 73). Babler et al. further teach 100 grams of the above pigment concentrate is blended with 100 grams Librel Zn in a Turbula mixer. The blend, which can instantly be incorporated into an aqueous liquid media, employed to coloring seeds homogeneously in a yellow color. Preparation of liquid media is described more fully in example 8 (page 6, paragraph 74). Polyvinylpyrrolidone is a crosslinked polymer.
Regarding the newly added limitation of independent claim 1 wherein the solids content in the resin dispersion is at least 20% by weight, relative to an overall weight of the dispersion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used experimentation and optimization to determine the amount of solids in the resin dispersion. Babler et al. teach that the low viscosity aqueous piment dispersions with a solids content of above 15%, or depending on the pigment of 20% or above. Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the solid content of the resin dispersion is at least 20% by weight. In addition, the adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding the newly added limitation of independent claim 1, wherein the relative amount of the rosin-based resin in the binder is such that the amount of the dry solid content of the rosin-based resin applied onto the seed is lower than 3 wt%, relative to the total weight of the seed, Babler et al. teach that the amount of the texture-improving additive is 0.05 to 30 parts by weight, preferably 1 to 20 parts by weight of the dry pigment concentrate (page 4, paragraph 47).
Babler et al. teach the shape and size of the micro granules are influenced by several parameters such the kind and particle size of the pigment, the kind and concentration of the additive or additive mixture respectively, as well as the spray dry conditions and the spray dryer equipment. The microgranules are generally less dusty and can be more easily handled than conventionally dried and micro pulverized pigments (page 5, paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 21, Babler et al. teach the dry pigment form or pigment concentrate is applied onto a seed that has been coated with an aqueous and/or organic liquid film-forming substance that also contain an active ingredient, defoamers and a binder (page 5, paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 22, the method comprises using at least one rosin-based resin as defined in claim 13 as a binder for a seed coating application, Babler et al. disclose IRGALITE Blue GE granules from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., which is a hydrogenated rosin treated C.I. Pigment Blue 15.3 is pulverized in an assemble micro pulverizer using a 0.125 inch round hole screen and a rotating speed of 7000 RPM (page 6, paragraph 66). 900 grams of the above resulting pulverized pigment is blended with 225 grams Canfil 7 (binder) and 300 grams Librel Zn (active ingredient) from Ciba Specialty Chemicals. The mixture is air jet milled with a MicroJet® air jet mill to a top particle size of below 10 µm. The resulting blue dry pigment concentrate is ideally suited for homogeneously coloring seeds in a consistent blue color. The method disclosed by Babler et al., application of hydrogenated rosin treated C.I. Pigment Blue 15.3 to seeds, is the same method claimed, use of at least one-rosin based resin as a binder for a seed coating application. Therefore, based on these steps, dust suppression, as recited in the preamble would necessarily flow from carrying out the indicated steps with the specified rosin. In addition, Babler et al. disclose the seed coating compositions are less dusty and can be more easily handled.
Regarding claim 29, Babler et al. teach the pigment concentrates are obtained by spraying an aqueous dispersion. A highly concentrated pigment press-cake is slurried in any suitable device at temperatures between 5 to 90°C, preferably 20 to 60°C, such as a CowleS™ disperser.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Babler et al. does not specifically disclose the composition comprising a dust value, as measured using a Heubach dustmeter device according to the Euroseeds reference method, which is lower by at least 30% or 50% as compared to an analogous binder-fee composition that does not contain the rosin-based resin or the resin dispersion is at least 20% by weight, relative to an overall weight of the dispersion. It is for this reason the Halecky et al. Publication is added as a secondary reference.
Halecky et al. teach the dusting of seed coating in a mixture of active ingredients applied in conjunction with a binder and a colorant onto the surface of a seed (page 184, Introduction, Seed Coating Concepts, 1st paragraph). Halecky et al. teach that from 2008 to 2010, dust emissions from treated corn seed within the EU went from 1.11 to 0.18 g/ha. Agrochemical formulators worldwide continue to develop seed coatings with greater abrasion resistance to further minimize driftable dust generation (page 185, paragraph 2). Halecky et al. teach the most widely used test method to measure dust-off from seeds is the Heubach Dustmeter shown in Fig. 1, having been certified as a standard seed dust-off method by the European Seed Association as well as by other institutions world-wide. It has become the de facto method for seed coating formulations in the United States. The weight of dust on the filter is determined and, depending on the type of seed tested, is reported either as grams of dust per 100,000 seeds or grams of dust per 100 kg of seed. The maximum allowable dust per seed weight or seed count varies by type of seed, by country, and by pesticide. However, seed coating formulators are striving to achieve levels several orders of magnitude lower (page 185, paragraph 2). Halecky et al. teach in addition to the need to minimize pesticide dust-off, seed coatings must meet other demands of large-scale agriculture (page 185, paragraph 4).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Babler et al. and the Halecky et al. Publication and measure the dust value using the Heubach dustmeter device according to the Euroseeds reference method, which is lower by at least 30% or 50% as compared to an analogous binder-free composition that does not contain the rosin-based resin. Babler et al. teach 300 grams IRGALITE Red C2B from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. which is a rosin and resin acid salt (rosin based resin) treated C.I. Pigment Red 48.2 is blended on a roller gear with 50 grams Canfil 7 from Canada Talc Ltd. (binder), which has an average particle size of 7 µm and 100 grams Librel Zn (active ingredient) from Ciba Specialty Chemicals. The resulting blend is micro pulverized in an assemble micro pulverizer using a 0.027 inch round hole screen and a rotating speed of 14500 RPM yielding an easily dispersible dry pigment concentrate which homogeneously colors seeds (seeds) in a strong red color and additionally promotes growth (page 6, paragraph 63). Babler et al. teach the shape and size of the micro granules are influenced by several parameters such the kind and particle size of the pigment, the kind and concentration of the additive or additive mixture respectively, as well as the spray dry conditions and the spray dryer equipment. The microgranules are generally less dusty and can be more easily handled than conventionally dried and micro pulverized pigments. One of ordinary skill in the art would art would have found it obvious to use a known method and device to determine the dust value of the seed coating, such as the Heubach Dustmeter which is certified as a standard dust-off method by the European Seed Association, which has become the de facto method for seed coating formulations in the United States, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding the limitations of the dust value being lower by at least 30%, as claimed in claims 15 and 19 and at least 50%, as claimed in claim 20, as compared to an analogous binder-free composition, that does not contain the rosin-based resin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation and optimization to determine the optimal dust values of the coated seeds. Babler et al. teach compositions and methods of preparing the coated seeds as the claimed invention. As noted, Babler et al. teach coating 300 grams IRGALITE Red C2B which is a rosin and resin acid salt (rosin based resin) treated C.I. Pigment Red 48.2 that is blended on a roller gear with 50 grams Canfil 7 which has an average particle size of 7 µm and 100 grams Librel Zn (active ingredient). The resulting blend is micro pulverized in an assemble micro pulverizer using a 0.027 inch round hole screen and a rotating speed of 14500 RPM yielding an easily dispersible dry pigment concentrate which homogeneously colors seeds (seeds) in a strong red color and additionally promotes growth. Babler et al. further teach the microgranules are generally less dusty and can be easily handled than conventionally dried and micropulverized pigment. Babler et al. also teach the grass seeds colored with the rosin and resin acid salts also show the advantage of notably faster growth behavior versus the uncolored or differently treated seeds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the level of dust to produce seeds with greater abrasion resistance to further minimize driftable dust generation. In addition, seed coating formulators are striving to achieve dust values levels several orders of magnitude lower. Likewise, regarding the limitation of the dust value being lower by at least 30% or at least 50%, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the level of dust value to provide seeds with greater abrasion resistance to further minimize driftable dust generation as seed coating formulators are striving to achieve dust values levels several orders of magnitude lower, as a matter of routine optimization and experimentation to produce coated seeds with lower dust values, without evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babler et al. (US 2003/022135) in view of Halecky et al. Publication (2016, Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems, Halecky et al.) as applied to claims 13, 15, 17-26, and 29 above, and further in view of Walker Publication (1927, Bureau of Standards Journal of Research). Babler et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS date 1/17/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a coated seed composition comprising: at least one seed; and at least one layer coating all or part of the seed, the layer comprising, as a binder, at least one rosin-based resin from a resin dispersion comprising the at least one rosin-based resin wherein the solids content in the resin dispersion is at least 20 % by weight, relative to the overall weight of the dispersion, and wherein the relative amount of the rosin-based resin in the binder is such that the amount as dry solids content of the rosin-based resin applied onto the seed is lower than 3 wt.%, relative the total weight of the seed. Applicant claims the composition comprising a dust value, as measured using a Heubach dustmeter device according to the Euroseeds reference method, which is lower by at least 30% as compared to an analogous binder-fee composition that does not contain the rosin-based resin. Applicant also claims a method for preparing a coated seed composition having dust suppression benefits comprising the step of contacting at least a portion of at least one seed with at least on layer comprising at least one rosin-based resin, wherein the coated seed composition comprises a dust value, as measured using a Heubach dustmeter device according to the Euroseeds reference method, which is lower by at least 30% or 50% as compared to an analogous binder-free composition that does not contain the rosin-based resin.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Babler et al. and the Halecky et al. Publication are discussed herein above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Babler et al. and the Halecky et al. Publication do not specifically disclose the at least one rosin-based resin has a Ring and Ball softening point ranging from 10°C to about 150°C. It is for this reason the Walker Publication is added as a secondary reference.
The Walker Publication teaches the softening point of materials which, like asphalt, have no definite melting point, but which when heated gradually change from brittle or very thick and slow-flowing materials to more mobile liquids, can only be determined by some arbitrary method. The ring and ball method which briefly consists of determining the temperature at which a disk of the material held in a ring and loaded with a ball will flow through a definite distance when heated at a prescribed rate is one of the best methods for such tests (page 195, Abstract). The Walker Publication teaches in the procedure for Bituminous materials and resins having softening points 80°C or lower, fill the glass container to a depth of not less than 9 cm with freshly boiled distilled water that has been cooled to not less than 45°C below the softening point of the material under test, provided such softening point is not below 50°C. Place the filled ring and ball, but not in contact, in the bath and maintain the initial temperature for 15 minutes. Then place the ball in the center of the upper surface of the material in the ring, and at once suspend the support carrying the ring, ball, and horizontal plate so that the top of the ring is not less than 5.1 cm below the surface of the water and the thermometer is hanging approximately in the middle of the container. The figure shows details of the ring, ball guide, support, container, and assembly of apparatus except tripod and burner. Apply heat in such a manner that the temperature of the water after the first three minutes of heating is raised uniformly. To facilitate uniform heating, it is advisable to place the burner midway between the center and the edge of the beaker away from the specimen. Report as the softening point the temperature indicated by the thermometer (adding or subtracting any certified corrections, but making no emergent stem corrections) at the instant the sample touches the horizontal plate or the bottom of the container (page 199-200, IV. Procedure 1. Bituminous Materials, Resins, etc. Having Softening Points 80°C or Lower).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Babler et al., the Halecky et al. Publication, and the Walker Publication and the rosin-based resin has a Ring and Bell softening point ranging from about 10°C to about 150°C. Babler et al. teach the pigment concentrates are obtained by spraying an aqueous dispersion. A highly concentrated pigment press-cake is slurried in any suitable device at temperatures between 5 to 90°C, preferably 20 to 60°C, such as a CowleS™ disperser. This falls within the softening point of 10°C to about 150°C, currently claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a different method to measure the softening point such as the Ring and Ball Method taught by the Walker Publication. The Walker Publication teaches for resins the Ring and Ball Method which briefly consists of determining the temperature at which a disk of the material held in a ring and loaded with a ball will flow through a definite distance when heated at a prescribed rate is one of the best methods to test for softening. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a different method, especially one that is trusted and considered one of the best methods of measuring the softening point of resins, with a reasonable expectation of success as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babler et al. (US 2003/022135) in view of the Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament Article 3(5) (2006, Official Journal of the European Union). Babler et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS date 1/17/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a coated seed composition comprising: at least one seed; and at least one layer coating all or part of the seed, the layer comprising, as a binder, at least one rosin-based resin from a resin dispersion comprising the at least one rosin-based resin wherein the solids content in the resin dispersion is at least 20 % by weight, relative to the overall weight of the dispersion, and wherein the relative amount of the rosin-based resin in the binder is such that the amount as dry solids content of the rosin-based resin applied onto the seed is lower than 3 wt.%, relative the total weight of the seed. Applicant claims the rosin-based resin does not comprise polymers within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Babler et al. are discussed herein above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Babler et al. does not specifically disclose the rosin-based resin from a dispersion comprising the at least one rosin-based resin or that the rosin-based resin does not comprise polymers within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. It is for this reason the Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament Article 3(5) is added as a secondary reference.
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament Article 3(5) teaches a polymer means a substance consisting of molecules characterized by the sequence of one or more types of monomer units. Such molecules must be distributed over a range of molecular weights wherein differences in the molecular weight are primarily attributable to differences in the number of monomer units. A polymer comprises the following: (a) a simple weight majority containing at least three monomer units which are covalently bound to at least one other monomer unit or other reactant; (b) less than a simple weight majority of molecules of the same molecular weight. In the context of this definition a ‘monomer unit’ means the reacted form of a monomer substance in a polymer (page L 136/20, Section 5).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Babler et al. and the Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament Article 3(5) and know that rosin acids and resin acids taught by Babler et al. do not comprise polymers within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulations (EC) No 1907/2006. Babler et al. teach 300 grams IRGALITE Red C2B from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. which is a rosin and resin acid salt (rosin based resin) treated C.I. Pigment Red 48.2 is blended on a roller gear with 50 grams Canfil 7 from Canada Talc Ltd. (binder), which has an average particle size of 7 µm and 100 grams Librel Zn (active ingredient) from Ciba Specialty Chemicals. Babler et al. teach that the rosin, rosin acids or rosin acid salts are preferred texture-improving additives. Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that these rosin and resin acid derivatives do not contain polymers, especially since Babler et al. teach that other polar polymers or copolymers can be used in the composition. As such, one of ordinary of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that rosin resins used to pigment coating formulation taught by Babler et al. are not polymers within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulations (EC) No 1907/2006 because it comprises rosin acids, not polymers, without evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babler et al. (US 2003/022135) in view of Halecky et al. Publication (2016, Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems, Halecky et al.) as applied to claims 13, 15, 17-26, and 29 above, and further in view of Ni et al. (WO 99/57959). Babler et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS date 1/17/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a coated seed composition comprising: at least one seed; and at least one layer coating all or part of the seed, the layer comprising, as a binder, at least one rosin-based resin from a resin dispersion comprising the at least one rosin-based resin wherein the solids content in the resin dispersion is at least 20 % by weight, relative to the overall weight of the dispersion, and wherein the relative amount of the rosin-based resin in the binder is such that the amount as dry solids content of the rosin-based resin applied onto the seed is lower than 3 wt%, relative the total weight of the seed. Applicant claims the composition wherein the crosslinked polymer is a starch and the at least one rosin-based resin and the starch are provided in a relative weight ratio ranging from 0.5 to 100.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Babler et al. and the Halecky et al. Publication are discussed herein above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Babler et al. and the Halecky et al. Publication do not specifically disclose the crosslinked polymer is a starch and the at least one rosin-based resin and the starch are provided in a relative weight ratio ranging from 0.5 to 100. It is for this reason the Ni et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Ni et al. teach a film coated seed is formed by film coating with a starch-based polymer (Abstract). Ni et al. teach starch is a natural polysaccharide, high molecular weight polymer comprised of repeating 1,4-α-D-glucopyranosyl units derived from plants (page 6, lines 20-23). Ni et al. teach the film coating is a starched based polymer. Ni et al. teach typically an adhesive or binder such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) (page 7, lines 20-23). Ni et al. teach that other ingredients such as crosslinking agents from the starch-based polymer, hydrophilic agents to adjust the physical properties of the starch-based polymer film coating on the seed (page 8, lines 24-27). Ni et al. teach since the cost of the starch-based polymer is much lower than conventional polymers used to film coat seeds, the added cost per pound of seed is also very low (page 12, lines 21-22).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Babler et al., the Halecky et al. Publication, and Ni et al. and use starch as the crosslinked polymer and the at least one rosin-based resin and the starch are provided in the relative weight ratio ranging from 0.5 to 100. Babler et al. teach the colored seed comprises a seed having an exterior surface coated with at least one layer of pigment concentrate that comprises from 85 to 99.5 parts by weight of an organic pigment, and from 0.5 to 15 parts by weight of a polar polymer or copolymer having a weight average molecular weight of not more than 300,000, relative to one another. Babler et al. teach the polar polymer or copolymer is a polyvinyl pyrrolidone or copolymer thereof with an average molecular weight of above 5000. Babler et al. teach a formulation comprising polyvinyl pyrrolidone and a rosin-resin pigment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the polyvinyl pyrrolidone with a starch in the seed coating taught by Babler et al. based on the teachings of Ni et al. Ni et al. teach a starched based polymer for film coating on a seed. Ni et al. teach typically an adhesive or binder such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP). Ni et al. teach that other ingredients such as crosslinking agents from the starch-based polymer, hydrophilic agents to adjust the physical properties of the starch-based polymer film coating on the seed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one functional equivalent crosslinking agent, such as starch, for another functional equivalent crosslinking agent, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, especially since the starch-based polymer is much lower than conventional polymers used to film coat seeds wherein the added cost per pound of seed is also very low.
Regarding the relative weight ratio of rosin-based resin and the starch ranging from 0.5 to 100, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation and optimization to determine the amount of rosin-based resin and starch in the compositions. Babler et al. teach the colored seed comprises a seed having an exterior surface coated with at least one layer of pigment concentrate that comprises from 85 to 99.5 parts by weight of an organic pigment, which is the resin product, and from 0.5 to 15 parts by weight of a polar polymer or copolymer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Babler to determine the weight ratio of starch to the rosin-based resin, with a reasonable expectation of success. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references, especially within the broad ranges instantly claimed) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Babler does not teach or suggest a solids content of the rosin-resin of the resin dispersion. In response to Applicant’s argument, Babler et al. specifically teach that the low viscosity aqueous pigment dispersions with a solids content of above 15%, or depending on the pigment of 20% or above. Babler et al. further teach that despite the high pigment concentration, these pigment dispersions have the advantage that they are liquid, easily flowable, and ideally suited for spraying drying. Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the solid content of the resin dispersion is at least 20% by weight because the aqueous pigment dispersions comprise various rosing based resins to form the dispersions, such as 300 grams IRGALITE Red C2B which is a rosin and resin acid salt (rosin based resin).
Applicant argues that Halecky teaches developing seed coating with greater abrasion resistance to further minimize driftable dust generation and that the examples in the specification as filed, the use of the rosin-based resin in the form of a resin-dispersion and having Ring and Ball softening point together with a starch as a binder in seed coating composition exhibits an appropriate viscosity while maintaining good performance. Applicant argues this technical effect is neither taught or suggested by the prior art. In response to Applicant’s argument, independent claim 1 does not require the limitation of a Ring and Ball softening point ranging from about 10°C to about 150°C. If this limitation is result effective and critical to the claimed invention, it should be included in the independent claim. Halecky et al. was added to provide a motivation to use the Heubach dustmeter, as claimed in dependent claims 15 and 19, to measure the dust value. Babler et al. teach 300 grams IRGALITE Red C2B from Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. which is a rosin and resin acid salt (rosin based resin) treated C.I. Pigment Red 48.2 is blended on a roller gear with 50 grams Canfil 7 from Canada Talc Ltd. (binder), which has an average particle size of 7 µm and 100 grams Librel Zn (active ingredient) from Ciba Specialty Chemicals. The resulting blend is micro pulverized in an assemble micro pulverizer using a 0.027 inch round hole screen and a rotating speed of 14500 RPM yielding an easily dispersible dry pigment concentrate which homogeneously colors seeds (seeds) in a strong red color and additionally promotes growth (page 6, paragraph 63). Babler et al. teach the shape and size of the micro granules are influenced by several parameters such the kind and particle size of the pigment, the kind and concentration of the additive or additive mixture respectively, as well as the spray dry conditions and the spray dryer equipment. The microgranules are generally less dusty and can be more easily handled than conventionally dried and micro pulverized pigments. One of ordinary skill in the art would art would have found it obvious to use a known method and device to determine the dust value of the seed coating, such as the Heubach Dustmeter which is certified as a standard dust-off method by the European Seed Association, which has become the de facto method for seed coating formulations in the United States, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Applicant argues that Babler does not recognize the use of rosins to decrease dust in coated seed compositions or the criticality or result-effectiveness in reducing dust. In response to Applicant’s argument, Babler et al. teach the shape and size of the microgranules are influenced by several parameters such the kind and particle size of the pigment, the kind and concentration of the additive or additive mixture respectively, as well as the spray dry conditions and the spray dryer equipment. The microgranules are generally less dusty and can be more easily handled than conventionally dried and micro pulverized pigments. Babler et al. teach that due to the high solids content, the pigment dispersions are dried rapidly and economically by spray drying, yielding unique pigment compositions composed of microgranules. The additives are homogeneously distributed in the stir-in pigment and serve as the binder for the microgranules. As such, based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Babler does recognize the microgranules that are formed which are combined with the additives that include the rosin-resins, are less dusty and can be more easily handled. In addition, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. While there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention.
Applicant indicates that it has been demonstrated that the inventive coating formulations demonstrate no caking issues and were able to coat seeds easily. Applicant indicates when a second binder, a crosslinked starch is incorporated into the formulation and the rosin-based resin includes a lower softening point, as shown in Example 3/Tables 7-9, a suitable viscosity is obtained, which is acceptable for the binder formulation. In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant is claiming unexpected results. The data in the original specification referenced by Applicant compares the inventive compositions with compositions comprising water only, as control, or commercial styrene acrylic latex dispersion (SAL), the benchmark. The data does indicate no caking, dry formulations and no residual, including dust levels lower than the control. The examiner notes that there are no comparisons to compositions of the prior art. Applicant asserts that the dust levels of the inventive compositions are superior than the invention, however, there is no data to support this assertion because none of the comparative examples exemplify the prior art compositions. In addition, the dispersions of the rosin-based resins tested are identified by the % solids and the softening points. There is no indication that the relative amount of the rosin-based resin in the binder is such that the amount as dry solids content of the rosin-based resin applied onto the seed is lower than 3 wt %, relative to the total weight of the seed. In addition, independent claim 1 does not claim the softening point. Therefore, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
The claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614