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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
The amendment of 10/31/2025 has been entered (claim set as filed on 10/31/2025). Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 15-34 are pending in this US patent application. Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 15-34 currently under examination and were examined on their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/03/2025 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3, 17B-E, 18A-F, and 19A-H are visually unclear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 15-18 recite functional language that describes the properties and abilities of a composition, wherein the functional language can be interpreted as 1) the recited functionality is an inherent property of the structure that is already recited in the claim, for example, when the minicell encapsulating the essential oil is placed in an acidic pH with a pH of less than 7, the minicell stabilizes the essential oil, or 2) the recited functionality is intended to further limit the structure of the composition already recited in the claim to a subset of compositions with those structural characteristics that have the recited functionalities, for example, the composition has a pH of less than 7. It is unclear if the recited functional limitations are properties of the composition or if the limitations are limiting the pH of the composition itself. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of claims 15-18, rendering them indefinite.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the functional language in claims 15-18 as an inherent property of the composition with the recited structure in claim 1.
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.
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 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 1-4, 8-9, 13, 15-29, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakeel et al. (WO 2018/201161 A1, published on 11/01/2018), hereinafter ‘Shakeel’, as evidenced by Silvestre et al. (“Fractionation of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) essential oil using vacuum fractional distillation”, published on 08/09/2019, J Food Sci Technol, Vol. 56(12), pages 5422-5434), hereinafter ‘Silvestre’.
Shakeel’s general disclosure relates to anucleated cell-based platforms for encapsulation and delivery of agricultural compounds (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claims 1, 15-29, and 34 pertaining to the composition, Shakeel teaches a composition comprising: a minicell encapsulating an agricultural compound (“an anucleated cell-based platform for encapsulation and delivery of agricultural compounds”, “Release of agricultural compounds encapsulated by Minicell…The present disclosure teaches that agricultural compounds is retained within the mini cell and be released over time”, see abstract and paragraphs [0008], [00255]). Shakeel teaches wherein the agricultural compound can be a pesticide or insecticide (paragraph [00188]), and suggests the essential oils pyrethrum, garlic oil, rosemary oil, peppermint oil, soybean oil, and neem oil as pesticides/insecticides (“In some embodiments, an agricultural compound includes, but is not limited to a pesticide, an herbicide, an insecticide”, “The pesticides/ insecticides include …. pyrethrum, ….garlic oil, …r[e]osemary oil, peppermint oil, …soybean oil, … neem oil” see abstract and paragraphs [00188]-[00190]). It is noted that the instant specification defines “essential oil” as encompassing botanical oils and lipids (paragraph [56]), and further describes “pyrethrum” as an essential oil (paragraph [56]).
Shakeel teaches wherein the minicell and the agricultural compound are present in a weight-to-weight ratio of about 5:1 to about 1:5 in the composition (“the agricultural compound of interest and the anucleated cell are present in a weight ratio of…from about 1: 5 to about 5:1”; paragraph [00271]),
Pertaining to encapsulation efficiency, Shakeel teaches “encapsulation of an agricultural compound of interest at least … about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, or about 95%, by weight of the agricultural compound within the anucleated cell” (paragraph [00269]). Shakeel describes encapsulation efficiency as the total mass encapsulated divided by the starting total mass” (see paragraph [00264]). As such, Shakeel’s teaching on encapsulation of an agricultural compound at least about 80% by weight of the agricultural compound (paragraph [00269]) reads on wherein the minicell has at least 80% encapsulation efficiency to retain an agricultural compound, i.e. the essential oil (paragraphs [00186], [00190]), within the minicell (paragraph [00269]). It is further noted, that, as discussed above, Shakeel teaches the composition of claim 1. As such, given the same experimental conditions, Shakeel’s composition would have the same encapsulation efficiency, i.e. at least 80% encapsulation efficiency, to retain the essential oil within the minicell, as the composition in claim 1.
Please note that in the instant specification, a minicell is defined as an anucleate cell (“those skilled in the art often use the term "anucleated" when referring to bacterial minicells in addition to other eukaryotic minicells. Accordingly, in the present disclosure, the term "minicells" encompasses derivatives of eubacterial cells that lack a chromosome: derivatives of archaebacterial cells that lack their chromosome(s), and anucleate derivatives of eukaryotic cells that lack a nucleus and consequently a chromosome”; instant specification, paragraph [52]).
Regarding claim 3, pertaining to the minicell, Shakeel teaches wherein the minicell is derived from a bacterial cell (“In embodiments, said intact anucleated cell is a bacterially derived minicell”; paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, pertaining to the diameter of the minicell, Shakeel teaches wherein the minicell is less than 1 μm in diameter (“Typically, minicells produced from E. coli cells are generally spherical in shape and are about 0.1 to about 0.3 um in diameter.”; paragraph [00103]).
Regarding claim 8, pertaining to the essential oil, Shakeel teaches wherein the essential oil comprises geraniol (“r[e]osemary oil”, paragraph [00190]), genistein (“soybean oil”, paragraph [00190]), or pyrethrum (“pyrethrum”; paragraph [00190]). It is noted that rosemary oil comprises geraniol, as evidenced by Silvestre et al. (see abstract), and that the instant specification describes “pyrethrum” as an essential oil (paragraph [56]).
Regarding claim 9, pertaining to the essential oil, Shakeel teaches wherein the essential oil comprises geraniol (“r[e]osemary oil”, paragraph [00190]). It is noted that rosemary oil comprises geraniol, as evidenced by Silvestre et al. (see abstract).
Regarding claim 13, pertaining to pyrethrum, Shakeel teaches wherein the essential oil comprises pyrethrum (“pyrethrum”; paragraph [00190]). It is noted that the instant specification describes “pyrethrum” as an essential oil (paragraph [56]).
Regarding claims 15-18, please see above under Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 (b) for the Examiner’s interpretation of the indefinite language in claims 15-18. As discussed above, Shakeel teaches the composition of claim 1, and thus, teaches the inherent functionalities of said composition as described in the dependent claims 15-18.
Regarding claims 19-29 and 34, the claims recite functional limitations of the instant composition in claim 1. As discussed above, Shakeel teaches the composition of claim 1 and thus, teaches the inherent functionalities of said composition as described in the dependent claims 19-29 and 34.
In addition, Shakeel, teaches wherein “an anucleated cell-based platform for the encapsulation and delivery of agricultural compounds aims to protect the bioactivity from external factors until the compounds are applied to a target and to be slowly released to the intended target” (paragraph [00181]).
From Shakeel’s teachings one would not immediately envisage a minicell encapsulating an essential oil (instant claim 1). Shakeel does not expressly teach wherein the minicell and the active agent are present in a weight-to-weight ratio of about 1:1 (instant claim 2).
While Shakeel does not expressly teach a minicell encapsulating an essential oil (instant claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shakeel’s minicell composition with Shakeel’s teachings on the essential oils pyrethrum, garlic oil, rosemary oil, peppermint oil, soybean oil, and neem oil as pesticidal/insecticidal agricultural compounds, in order to have created a minicell encapsulating a pesticidal essential oil. One would have been motivated to do so to create a superior pesticidal composition that would protect and slow release an essential oil (see Shakeel, paragraph [00181]). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Shakeel’s minicell with an essential oil, since Shakeel suggests essential oils as pesticidal agricultural compounds (paragraphs [00188]-[00190]).
While modified Shakeel does not expressly teach wherein the minicell and the essential oil are present in a weight-to-weight ratio of about 1:1 (instant claim 2), the instantly recited ratio would be within the realm of routine experimentation since modified Shakeel teaches a weight-to-weight ratio of about 5:1 to about 1:5 (paragraph [00271]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimal weight-to-weight ratio for successfully applying the composition comprising the minicell and essential oil as a pesticide (see Shakeel, paragraph [00190]). Further, one would expect success since Shakeel teaches encapsulation of a variety of agents ([paragraph 00190]), and therefore, manipulation based on Shakeel’s teachings would be within the purview of an artisan. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 part II A.
Claims 1, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakeel et al. (WO 2018/201161 A1, published on 11/01/2018), hereinafter ‘Shakeel’, as evidenced by Silvestre et al. (“Fractionation of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) essential oil using vacuum fractional distillation”, published on 08/09/2019, J Food Sci Technol, Vol. 56(12), pages 5422–5434), hereinafter ‘Silvestre’, in view of Bessette et al. (WO 00/05964 A1, published on 02/10/2000), hereinafter ‘Bessette’.
Modified Shakeel’s teachings have been set forth above.
Modified Shakeel does not teach, wherein the essential comprises eugenol, genistein, thymol, or carvacrol (instant claim 8), wherein the essential oil comprises eugenol (instant claim 10), wherein the essential oil comprises genistein (instant claim 11), or wherein the essential oil comprises thymol (instant claim 12).
Bessette’s general disclosure relates to synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising essential oils and/or their constituents (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 8, pertaining to essential oil ingredients, Bessette teaches essential oil ingredients eugenol, genistein, thymol, and carvacrol (“Examples of such essential oils or their constituents include, but are not limited to, members selected from the group consisting of …carvacrol, …eugenol,… thymol“, “Preferred signal transduction modulators include …, genistein”; page 7, paragraph 1 - page 8, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 10, pertaining to eugenol, Bessette teaches the essential oil ingredient eugenol (“Examples of such essential oils or their constituents include, but are not limited to, members selected from the group consisting of … eugenol“; page 7, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 11, pertaining to genistein, Bessette teaches wherein a pesticidal composition comprises “known active pesticidal compounds and/or at least one of the above plant essential oil compounds, and at least one signal transduction modulator”, and recites genistein as a preferred signal transduction modulator (page 7, paragraph 2 - page 8, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 12, pertaining to essential oil ingredients, Bessette teaches the essential oil ingredient thymol (“Examples of such essential oils or their constituents include, but are not limited to, members selected from the group consisting of … thymol“; page 7, paragraph 1).
While modified Shakeel does not teach wherein the essential oil comprises eugenol, genistein, thymol, or carvacrol (instant claim 8), wherein the essential oil comprises eugenol (instant claim 10), wherein the essential oil comprises genistein (instant claim 11), or wherein the essential oil comprises thymol (instant claim 12), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Shakeel’s minicell composition with Bessette’s teachings on pesticidal compositions comprising essential oils, essential oil ingredients, and genistein, in order to have created a composition comprising a minicell encapsulating an essential oil, wherein the essential oil comprises eugenol, genistein, thymol, or carvacrol. One would have been motivated to do so in order to develop a superior pesticide composition since minicells provide protection and slow release of the encapsulated substances, and therefore would protect and slow release an essential oil and its ingredients (see Shakeel, paragraph [00181]). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Shakeel’s and Bessette’s teachings since both references are directed to pesticidal compositions (Shakeel, paragraphs [0008], [00190]; Bessette, page 1, paragraph 2).
Claims 1 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakeel et al. (WO 2018/201161 A1, published on 11/01/2018), hereinafter ‘Shakeel’, as evidenced by Silvestre et al. (“Fractionation of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) essential oil using vacuum fractional distillation”, published on 08/09/2019, J Food Sci Technol, Vol. 56(12), pages 5422–5434), hereinafter ‘Silvestre’, in view of Bang et al. (“Influence of chitosan coating on the liposomal surface on physicochemical properties and the release profile of nanocarrier systems”, published on 08/23/2011, Journal of Microencapsulation, Vol. 28(7), pages 595-604), hereinafter ‘Bang’.
Shakeel’s teachings have been set forth above.
Additionally, Shakeel et al. teaches wherein a minicell comprises a lipid bilayer that encapsulates the active agent (“The various mechanisms by which agrochemicals are typically lost to the environment are averted using the disclosed minicell-based encapsulation and delivery platform. This is because the lipid-bilayer of the mini cell acts as an effective layer of protection against harsh environmental conditions.”; paragraph [00181]).
Shakeel et al. does not teach wherein the minicell is coated by a biopolymer (instant claim 30), wherein the biopolymer is a chitosan (instant claim 31).
Bang’s general disclosure relates to chitosan-coated nanoliposomes containing etofenprox or alpha-cypermethrin (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claims 30-33, pertaining to the biopolymer coating, Bang teaches nanoliposomes coated with biopolymer (“chitosan-coated nanoliposomes”, “nanoliposomes coated with an environmentally benign and rapidly degradable molecule (chitosan); page 596, left column, paragraph 5; see abstract) (instant claim 30), wherein the biopolymer is chitosan (“chitosan-coated nanoliposomes”; page 596, left column, paragraph 5; see abstract) (instant claim 31).
Bang further teaches using insecticides as model substances to study release profiles of the nanocarrier system (page 596, left column, paragraph 6 -page 596, right column, paragraph 7), and that an increase of the concentration of the coating material chitosan extended the release period of the entrapped substances (see abstract and Fig. 9). Bang further discloses wherein liposomes are lipid bilayer vesicles (“liposomes (containing mainly phosphatidylcholine (PC), other phospholipids and some fatty acids)”; page 596, left column, paragraph 5; see liposome bilayer structure in Fig. 1).
While Shakeel does not teach wherein the minicell is coated by biopolymer (instant claim 30), wherein the biopolymer is a chitosan (instant claim 31), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Shakeel’s minicell composition with the chitosan coating taught by Bang, in order to create a minicell composition wherein the minicell is coated by biopolymer wherein the biopolymer is a chitosan. One would have been motivated to do so to extend the release of the essential oil from the minicell (Bang, see abstract and Fig. 8). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Shakeel’s and Bang’s teachings since both are directed to the encapsulation and release of insecticides using delivery vehicles comprising a lipid bilayer (Shakeel, paragraphs [0010], [00181]; Bang, page 596, left column, paragraph 5 -page 596, right column, paragraph 7; see liposome bilayer structure in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 32-33, the claims recite functional limitations of the claimed composition in claim 30. Shakeel in view of Bang teaches the claimed composition in claim 30. Therefore, it is highly expected, i.e. obvious, that modified Shakeel’s composition would have the same properties and inherent functionalities as described in claims 32-33.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 12-13, 16-19, 22-23, and 27-28 of copending Application No. 18/257,982 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets provide for similar compositions that comprise a minicell encapsulating an essential oil. ‘982 provides for encapsulation of a biologically active agent in a minicell, weight-to-weight ratios, a bacterial minicell, essential oil, pyrethrum, eugenol, geraniol, and thymol, of the instant claims. However, ‘982 does not teach an encapsulation efficiency of at least 80%. Shakeel (WO 2018/201161 A1, published on 11/01/2018) teaches at least 80% encapsulation efficiency (paragraph [00269]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have combined the minicell composition provided by ‘982 with Shakeel’s encapsulation efficiency of at least 80%, to have created a composition comprising a minicell encapsulating an essential oil with an encapsulation efficiency of at least 80%. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the amount of encapsulated essential oil.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10, 19, 21-28 of copending Application No. 18/257,995 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets provide for similar compositions comprising a minicell encapsulating an essential oil. ‘995 provides for encapsulation of a biologically active agent in a bacterial minicell, weight-to-weight ratios, minicell size, essential oil, eugenol, geraniol, and thymol, of the instant claims. However, ‘995 does not teach an encapsulation efficiency of at least 80 Shakeel (WO 2018/201161 A1, published on 11/01/2018) teaches at least 80% encapsulation efficiency (paragraph [00269]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have combined the minicell composition provided by ‘995 with Shakeel’s encapsulation efficiency of at least 80%, to have created a composition comprising a minicell encapsulating an essential oil with an encapsulation efficiency of at least 80%. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the amount of encapsulated essential oil.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has traversed the previous prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 (remarks, pages 6-9). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
In Applicant’s reply, Applicant states that “Shakeel teaches that the encapsulation efficiency of agrochemicals within mini cells can be achieved from about 2% up to about 52%1, but fails to teach at least 80% encapsulation efficiency.” (remarks, page 7).
The Examiner responds that Shakeel teaches at least 80% encapsulation efficiency (paragraph [00269]). As discussed above, Shakeel teaches “encapsulation of an agricultural compound of interest at least … about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, or about 95%, by weight of the agricultural compound within the anucleated cell” (paragraph [00269]). Shakeel describes encapsulation efficiency as the total mass encapsulated divided by the starting total mass” (see paragraph [00264]). Therefore, Shakeel’s teaching on encapsulation of an agricultural compound at least about 80% by weight of the agricultural compound (paragraph [00269]) reads on wherein the minicell has at least 80% encapsulation efficiency to retain an agricultural compound, i.e. the essential oil (paragraphs [00186], [00190]), within the minicell (paragraph [00269]).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA ZINGARELLI whose telephone number is (703)756-1799. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/SANDRA ZINGARELLI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653