DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Receipt and consideration of Applicant’s amended claim set and Applicant’s arguments/remarks submitted on May 26, 2026 are acknowledged.
All rejections/objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicant’s claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 11-18 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 3 and 8-10 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et al. (Arthur) (US 2009/0143447 A1; of record), Liu et al. (Liu) (US 2019/0373888 A1; published Dec. 12, 2019), and Jogikalmath et al. (Jogikalmath) (US 2014/0106964 A1; published Apr. 17, 2014).
With regards to Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, Arthur discloses aqueous seed treatment formulations comprising a pesticidal agent (e.g., insecticides, fungicides) (reading on biologically active ingredient), a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), a graft copolymer, and a plasticizer (abstract; Arthur claims 1 and 25; para.0036-0039).
The plasticizer may be present in an amount ranging from about 5-15 wt.% (para.0017). Among the suitable plasticizers include maltodextrin (para.0076).
The formulation further comprises about 0-5% by weight of a wax slip agent or dispersion. In an embodiment, the wax slip agent emulsion or dispersion is present in an amount of about 3% by weight (Arthur claim 26; para.0020, 0103). Arthur exemplifies the use of a carnauba wax emulsion (para.0186).
Thus, in the case that the wax dispersion is present in an amount of about 5% by weight of the formulation, and the plasticizer (maltodextrin) is present in an amount ranging from 5-15 wt.%, the sum of the amount of maltodextrin and wax dispersion is in the range of about 10-20 wt.%.
The invention relates to uses of the composition for protecting seeds from pests (abstract). The seed treatment formulation is applied to the seeds in an effective amount. The blend of PVA and graft copolymer provides a protective layer between the pesticidal agent and the seeds, thereby prolonging shelf life. The protective layer reduces any phytotoxicity that the pesticidal agent may have (Arthur claims 30 and 31; para.0064, 0109, 0110). In a preferred embodiment, the protective layer forms a membrane (para.0111). The seed treatment may be applied as a film coating (para.0109).
With regards to preparing the aqueous seed treatment formulation, Arthur generally discloses combining all of the aforementioned required components together (para.0119-0127).
With regards to the limitation in Claims 1, 11, and 17 regarding the amount of microplastics and/or microplastic particles, Arthur appears to be silent to the inclusion of microplastics or microplastic particles. Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, Arthur’s formulation does not contain any microplastics and/or microplastic particles (i.e., 0 wt.%).
With regards to Claim 2, the claim depends from claim 1, which recites rosin resin as an optional component. Claim 2 as currently written does not positively recite that the rosin resin is included. Thus, the claim as currently written reads as the rosin resin being an optional component, but if present, then it is required to have the properties recited in claim 2. In the present case, Arthur’s seed treatment formulation does not include rosin resin, and thus reads on the claim.
With regards to Claim 4, the claim depends from claim 1, which recites rosin resin as an optional component. Claim 4 as currently written does not positively recite that the rosin resin is included. Thus, the claim as currently written reads as the rosin resin being an optional component, but if present, then it is required to be a rosin recited in claim 4. In the present case, Arthur’s seed treatment formulation does not include rosin resin, and thus reads on the claim.
With regards to Claim 13, as discussed above, Arthur discloses that seed treatment formulation is applied to the seeds in an effective amount, and that the blend of PVA and graft copolymer provides a protective layer between the pesticidal agent and the seeds (para. 0110; Arthur claims 30-31). In a preferred embodiment, the protective layer forms a membrane (para.0111). The seed treatment may be applied as a film coating (para.0109). Because Arthur’s aforementioned method involves applying the formulation to the seed, and discloses that the seed treatment may be applied as a film coating, the resulting product will be a seed having said formulation coated thereon.
With regards to Claim 14, among the suitable seeds that may be treated include corn, soybean, sunflower, cotton, and rice (para.0115-0116; Table A; Table 7).
With regards to Claim 16, Arthur discloses the balance of the formulation being water to total 100% by weight (para.0107; Arthur claim 27). In a preferred embodiment, the pesticidal agent is present in the formulation in an amount from about 35-50 wt.% (para.0108). In such embodiments, water will always be present in an amount less than 85 wt.%.
Arthur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the wax dispersion is present in the composition at a concentration in a range from 8 wt.% to 22 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (Claims 1 and 12). Liu and Jogikalmath are relied upon for this disclosure. Their teachings are set forth herein below.
Liu is directed to a seed treatment composition, which comprises inter alia a wax emulsion in water (abstract; para.0008). Liu discloses that the wax emulsion in water may be present in compositions at a concentration from about 1 to 15 wt.% w/w (para.0021).
Jogikalmath is directed to seed coating systems, which may include waxes (para.0007). Jogikalmath discloses that wax is hydrophobic, thus ensuring little water ingression and sustained release (par.0037).
With regards to the amount of the wax dispersion as claimed in the instant Claims 1 and 12, as discussed above, Arthur discloses an aqueous seed treatment composition wherein the wax dispersion may be present in an amount up to 5% by weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Arthur and Liu and try up to 15 wt.% of a wax emulsion as disclosed by Liu in the seed treatment composition of Arthur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as such amounts of wax dispersion are known to be suitable for use in aqueous seed treatment formulations (Liu). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Moreover, because Liu discloses that wax emulsions are known to be incorporated into aqueous seed treatment compositions in amounts of up to 15 wt.%, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious and would have been motivated to adjust the amount of wax dispersion in Arthur’s seed treatment composition within a range up to 15 wt.% as disclosed by Liu and optimize the amount of the wax dispersion based on art recognized factors, such as the amount of water ingression desired and desired release rate of any active agents incorporated in the seed treatment (Jogikalmath).
The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining optimal or workable amount of wax emulsion in the seed treatment composition) 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, absent evidence of unexpected results. Where 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et al. (Arthur) (US 2009/0143447 A1; of record), Liu et al. (Liu) (US 2019/0373888 A1; published Dec. 12, 2019), and Jogikalmath et al. (Jogikalmath) (US 2014/0106964 A1; published Apr. 17, 2014) as applied to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11-18 set forth above, further in view of Remon et al. (Remon) (US 2011/0294864 A1; of record).
The teachings of Arthur, Liu, and Jogikalmath, and the motivation for their combination as they apply to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11-18 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
The combined teachings of Arthur, Liu, and Jogikalmath do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the maltodextrin is from the group recited in Claim 5. Remon is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Remon are set forth herein below.
Remon discloses a coacervate composition comprising a bio-active agent (abstract). The bio-active agent may be a pesticide, fertilizer, or herbicide, in which case the composition may be applied onto plants such as crops, e.g., using techniques well known in agriculture and horticulture (para.0089).
Remon’s composition comprises maltodextrin. The maltodextrin can be derived from any starch, such as from rice, corn, potato, or wheat (para.0064).
With regards to Claim 5, as discussed above, Arthur discloses that maltodextrin may be used as the plasticizer in the aqueous seed treatment formulation. In light of Remon’s disclosure that maltodextrin derived from rice, corn, potato, or wheat is known to be suitable for use in agricultural formulations for application to plants, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to further combine the teachings of Arthur, Liu, and Jogikalmath with the teachings of Remon and use a maltodextrin derived from rice, corn, potato, or wheat as the maltodextrin in the aqueous seed treatment formulation of the combined teachings of Arthur, Liu, and Jogikalmath as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Arthur and Remon are directed to formulations for agricultural use, and Remon discloses that maltodextrin derived from rice, corn, potato, and wheat sources are known to be suitable for agricultural use.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, new rejections citing new combination of references not addressed in Applicant’s arguments are set forth above.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 11-18 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Sue X 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights