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 .
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from examination.
The amendments and remarks filed on 09/03/2025 have been received and 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20120220454).
Chen et al. teach methods and compositions relating to agricultural coatings and, in particular, to seeds or agglomeration of seeds coated with guar or guar derivatives, and methods for use. See Para [0002]. Chen et al. teach that coating compositions comprising at least one seed and at least one layer coating all or part of the seed, the layer selected from the group consisting of guar, derivatized guar, polyacrylamide, poly(methacrylic acid), polyvinylpyrrolidone, poly(acrylic acid), polyacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol), phosphonate-end capped polymers, polyethylene oxide, poly(viny! alcohol), polyglycerol, polytetrahydrofuran, polyamide, hydroxypropyl guar, carboxymethyl guar, carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar, starch, derivatized starch, cationic starch, cornstarch, wheat starch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca, waxy maize, sorghum, waxy sorghum, sago, dextrin, chitin, chitosan, alginate compositions, xanthan gum, carrageenan gum, gum karaya, gum Arabic, pectin, cellulose, hydroxycellulose, hydroxyalkyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, a derivative of any of the foregoing and a combination of any of the foregoing. See Para [0013]. Chen et al. teach that the seed coating composition can also comprise a binder. The binder (or any of the layers) can be molasses, granulated sugar, alginates, karaya gum, jaguar gum, tragacanth gum, polysaccharide gum, mucilage, gelatin, polyvinyl acetates, polyvinyl acetate copolymers, polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinyl alcohol copolymers, celluloses (including ethyl celluloses and methylcelluloses, hydroxypropyl celluloses, hydroxymethyl celluloses, hydroxymethyl! propyl-celluloses), polyvinylpyrrolidone, dextrin, maltodextrins, polysaccharides, fats, oils, proteins, gum Arabica, shellacs, vinylidene chloride, vinylidene chloride copolymers, calcium lignosulfonates, acrylic copolymers, starches, derivatized starches, polyvinyl acrylates, zeins, carboxymethylcellulose, chitosan, polyethylene oxide, acrylamide polymers and copolymers, polyhydroxyethyl acrylate, methylcarbylamine monomers, alginate, ethyl cellulose, polychloroprene, syrups or any combination thereof. Se Para [0016]. Chen et al. teach that the he active ingredient can be one or more herbicides, plant growth regulators, crop desiccants, fungicides, bactericides, bacteriostats, insecticides, insect repellants, triazine herbicides, sulfonylurea herbicides, uracil, urea herbicides, acetanilide herbicides, organophosphate herbicides, glyphosate salts, glyphosate esters, nitrile oxime fungicides, imidazole fungicides, triazole fungicides, sulfonamide fungicides, dithio-carbamate fungicides, chloronated aromatic, dichloro aniline fungicides, carbamate insecticides, organo thiophens insecticides; perchlorinated organic insecticides, methoxychlor, miticides, propynyl sulfite, triazapentadiene miticides, chlorinated aromatic miticides, tetradifan, dinitrophenol miticides, binapacryl, adjuvants, surfactants, fertilizers or any mixture thereof as claimed in claim 4. See Para[0017]. Chen et al. teach that at least one layer of the seed coating composition can comprise (in whole or partially) synthetic polymers, natural polymers or derivatives thereof. Such polymers are not particularly limited and can be homopolymers, as well as random or block or any other types of copolymers made from any polymerizable monomer. See Para [0026]. Chen et al. teach that Examples of suitable starch sources include but are not limited to corn starch, wheat starch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca, waxy maize, sorghum, waxy sorghum, sago and modified starches. Examples of modified starches include cationic, dextrinated, hydrolyzed, oxidized, crosslinked, alkylated, hydroxyalkylated, acetylated, fractionated (e.g. amylose and amylopectin) as claimed in claim 1, and physically modified starches as claimed in claim 3. See Para [0032]. The use of surfactants as claimed in claim 5 is taught in Para [0042]. The use of components, such as titanium as claimed in claim 5 is taught in Para [0036]. Chen et al. teach the layer can comprise a 90 wt. % derivatized guar and 10 wt. % starch (or derivatized starch) mixture, or a 60 wt. % hydroxypropyl guar and 40 wt. % carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar mixture as claimed in claim 6. See Para [0048]. The use of unmodified starch is also taught in Para [0048]. Chen does not specifically teach up to 40% unmodified starch as claimed in claim 1. The determination of optimum proportions and amounts are considered to be within the skill of the artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), where it states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Chen et al. clearly teach the use of the claimed starch in combination with an active ingredient and a polymer in a seed coating composition. Applicant has presented no evidence to the unexpected or unobvious nature of the claimed invention, and as such, claims 1-6 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks have been noted. Applicant in his remarks argues that “Chen teaches the use of a seed, and a seed coating composition that contains: 1) guar and ii) any one or more of a long list of ingredients, a list that includes starch. Chen teaches seed coating compositions that contain no starch at all (paragraph [0048] reciting “60% wt.% hydroxypropyl guar and 40% wt.% carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar mixture”). Chen calls out Chen teaches seed coating compositions that must contain guar, but needn’t contain starch”. It is the examiner’s position that Chen discloses and claims the use of starch in a seed coating composition. Therefore, starch has been taught to be an ingredient in a seed coating composition. Applicant’s arguments regarding the teachings in Para [0048] of Chen have been noted. It is the examiner’s position that Chen in Para [0048] teaches the seed coating composition of starch and guar and another option of having only guar and carboxymethylcellulose. There are no teachings in Chen that starch cannot be used in a seed coating composition. To the contrary there are ample teachings in Chen for a person skilled in the art to use starch and an active ingredient as a seed coating composition.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
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 at 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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights